Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They show that isotopic analysis reveals an anthropogenic fingerprint, which SSDD had claimed didn't exist. Do you also assert that no anthropogenic fingerprint may be discerned by an isotopic analysis of environmental carbon dioxide?
You've got to be smart enough to realize throwing your lot in with SSDD cannot be to your benefit.
I don't really give a damn what you have to say. You inserted yourself into a conversation of which you were not a participant and not wanted. SSDD claims there is no fingerprint of anthropogenicity in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That point is clearly made in both papers. He's wrong. About you I couldn't care less.
I don't really give a damn what you have to say. You inserted yourself into a conversation of which you were not a participant and not wanted. SSDD claims there is no fingerprint of anthropogenicity in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That point is clearly made in both papers. He's wrong. About you I couldn't care less.
There is no anthropogenic fingerprint on the global climate...there is data manipulation...there is warming bias...there are all sorts of fabrication, and outright lies...but no actual fingerprint.
And who the hell are you to say who enters a conversation on a public board?
Why don't you answer his question? Let me guess...because you have no answer...what you have is ad hominems and insult.....and nothing else.
I was responding to you.
the one who keeps posting links to the peer reviewed studies on which my positions are based. You and your buddies are the ones who DO NOT.
Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the determination of multiple, peer reviewed, isotopic analyses that fossil fuels are the source of almost every bit of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the acceleration of warming in the deep ocean since the turn of the century.
Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the imbalance of radiative energy at the ToA showing that the planet is still accumulating solar energy.
You need to identify a specific point if you actually want to discuss something.
And if you'd like to demonstrate that you're a homophobic bigot as well, I'm not going to stop you.
still waiting for those experiments.Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the determination of multiple, peer reviewed, isotopic analyses that fossil fuels are the source of almost every bit of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the acceleration of warming in the deep ocean since the turn of the century.
Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the imbalance of radiative energy at the ToA showing that the planet is still accumulating solar energy.
deniers on this board seem to rely on gang mentality for them to be able to spread their yabut "know-nothing" agenda.They show that isotopic analysis reveals an anthropogenic fingerprint, which SSDD had claimed didn't exist. Do you also assert that no anthropogenic fingerprint may be discerned by an isotopic analysis of environmental carbon dioxide?
You've got to be smart enough to realize throwing your lot in with SSDD cannot be to your benefit.
And cricket, I've asked for the exact line out of the hundred of experiments that you've shown that show it. Why can't you just breakout the lines of this so called experiment and post it? Why are you acting like an ass and just complaining you already provided it. Isn't it obvious we didn't see it? Or are you not intelligent enough to know how to address it?I'm amazed it took you that long to figure that out. ;-)
The problem is that we HAVE shown you those experiments. You've seen them. We all know this to be a fact. You've just chosen to lie about them. On the other hand, no one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting the fossil fuel source of our added CO2. No one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting recent acceleration of warming in the deep occean. Finally, no one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting continued imbalance in radiative transfer at the ToA.
So, when I do it, it's an honest and objective description of the different qualities of our arguments. When you do it, it's simply more lying. So, apparently, you can not do it.
How geniune would it be for him to just make a statement that there aren't any. That's all I need. Then, he can go away since his point for me would be useless.The problem is not that experiments and data collection haven't taken place, the problem is the conclusions that are being drawn from them. Climate science is more like an adversarial court case where one side is trying to 'win', rather than an honest search for the truth based on the evidence rather than the assumptions.
Isn't it obvious we didn't see it?
Isn't it obvious we didn't see it?
Did you note the comment from Ian: "The problem is not that experiments and data collection haven't taken place". Now why don't you spend the next two months bitching to him instead. I'm not going to post you shit. I at least have the intellect required to learn from my experiences and my experiences with you tell me you are a liar and that whatever I might do, you will continue to lie. Not a game in which I have any interest in playing.
I'm infinitely more honest than you. I have actually admitted my mistakes and corrected them. You've had more mistakes shown to you point blank than all the king's army could gather. Yet you won't give the first inkling that you might be willing to consider the possibility that you could be wrong about anything.