Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I see. So every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planet are buying into a quasi-scientific theory. LOL. And you, with your wide ranging academic credentials know better. LOLThe people that reject quasi-scientific theory as Gospel are people with brains. You assholes wouldn't need a consensus of opinion if you had facts.The people behind the denial of Climate Change are people who own businesses or stock in businesses that would have to change their way of doing things and that would CUT INTO PROFITS.
They don't give a fuck what the Earth is like 50 years from now because they figure they will be dead by then anyway and all they care about is making MORE MONEY NOW.
It puzzles me why so many 30K / year wonders so vigorously support them and deny Climate Change when there is no upside for them to do so.
They just look ignorant when you compare their ' no such thing as Climate Change rants ' to the scientific facts.
I don't understand why they support the position of the business owners who are using them like a tampon anyway ... use them up and throw them away because they aren't as profitable as they used to be or they found someone to work cheaper.
I fully understand people who own petroleum factories and coal mines and steel mills etc. etc. deny Climate Change. They don't want to spend any money and change their way of doing business because of the short term cost and the loss of PROFITS.
But why do their underpaid employees support them? There is no upside for them, especially in the long run.
I am embarrassed for you, Oldrock. So the death knell has tolled because we're halfway to a scientist's guess at a nebulous "danger point". And you proclaim ME a "dumb ass".LOL yourself, you dumb ass. That is halfway to the danger mark. Except we are already seeing effects that were predicted to come much further down the line and at a higher level of GHGs.According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL
Gotta love it when these people that failed their GED's get online and state how they are know so much more about a subject than a scientist that has spent decades studying it.
===========I see. So every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planet are buying into a quasi-scientific theory. LOL. And you, with your wide ranging academic credentials know better. LOL
He got a discount on his Doctorate in Planetary Ecology because he works the same place he bought it --- K-MART.
Here's the little trouble, one prediction does not guarantee future predictions no matter how many names you call me. Still, thank you for showing us how smart you are by equating freight trains with the weather. Alas, the atmosphere and the ocean, with or without "huge inertia", cannot fill the void that is your mind.Why yes, you are truly a dumbass. As I also mentioned, many of the things predicted to happen at that point are already happening. So that point, 2 degrees, is, perhaps, a bit high.
Something you less than acute intellects should consider. A freight train with a half mile of cars has the same power at 60 mph as it does sitting still. But it takes a lot of time for that train to reach 60 mph. A matter of inertia. Today, we are at 400 ppm of CO2 and 1800 ppb of CH4. However, we have reached these levels in a very short time, and the atmosphere and oceans have huge inertia. So both, like the freight train gaining speed, are going to be gain temperature for a long time to come. And you silly flapyappers stating we have only increased the temperature by 1 C are like the guy 20 miles down the track stating that the train is only going five mph right now so why should he move the car?
Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus. The LOL is echoing in the hollow chambers of your brain housing.I see. So every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planet are buying into a quasi-scientific theory. LOL. And you, with your wide ranging academic credentials know better. LOLThe people that reject quasi-scientific theory as Gospel are people with brains. You assholes wouldn't need a consensus of opinion if you had facts.The people behind the denial of Climate Change are people who own businesses or stock in businesses that would have to change their way of doing things and that would CUT INTO PROFITS.
They don't give a fuck what the Earth is like 50 years from now because they figure they will be dead by then anyway and all they care about is making MORE MONEY NOW.
It puzzles me why so many 30K / year wonders so vigorously support them and deny Climate Change when there is no upside for them to do so.
They just look ignorant when you compare their ' no such thing as Climate Change rants ' to the scientific facts.
I don't understand why they support the position of the business owners who are using them like a tampon anyway ... use them up and throw them away because they aren't as profitable as they used to be or they found someone to work cheaper.
I fully understand people who own petroleum factories and coal mines and steel mills etc. etc. deny Climate Change. They don't want to spend any money and change their way of doing business because of the short term cost and the loss of PROFITS.
But why do their underpaid employees support them? There is no upside for them, especially in the long run.
Says the guy that can't figure out how to quote posts on an internet forum. Ding! Your fries are done.He got a discount on his Doctorate in Planetary Ecology because he works the same place he bought it --- K-MART.
Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.
According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL
According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL
Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.
The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.
Those are the facts.
Bullshit.Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.
The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.
Those are the facts.
.........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:
"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"
View attachment 55920
His data comes from divine revelation..........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:
"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"
View attachment 55920
Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.
Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.
The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.
Those are the facts.
His data comes from divine revelation..........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:
"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"
View attachment 55920
Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.
From their pamplet:His data comes from divine revelation..........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:
"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"
View attachment 55920
Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.
Which Church?
The Church of the Way-ward and Far Out or is it the Al Gore We All Gonna Burn Church?
Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.
The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.
Those are the facts.
Fact is that science does not work on Consensus
Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.
The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.
Those are the facts.
Bullshit.
Like the Steady State model of the universe?HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?
