Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Any links ?


.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

There is no such published paper of EMPIRICAL based research to support it. If there were, there wouldn't be HUNDREDS of NEW climate models, with NEW emission scenarios be published every 5 years in the IPCC report.

There are many published papers using a lot of unverified modeling constructs, which means a lot of assumption, Kridging and infilling to make a half baked premise that CO2 is the dominant source of warming since the 1970's. It is IMPOSSIBLE since the increase of energy outflow from the planet always exceeds the postulated warm forcing increase of CO2.

CO2 absorb and release IR energy, no heat is produced in the process, no change at all in its energy state if it emitted the same way it was absorbed.

Climate models do NOT have demonstrated forecast skill, which is why every 5 years we get a new 100 + climate models in the IPCC report, it has become a waste of time continuing this line of failures. It is now a money trail and nothing more.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

That was YOUR excuse for not providing the "physical evidence", which means you have nothing as usual.

 

[MisterBeale]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

First, it is a bit disingenuous to say, "the global scientific community," because I don't really think they all subscribe to the belief that humans are the primary driver,

Earth Science | Climate Change | Global Warming | Renewable Energy | Pollution Treatment | Renewable Energy | USA | Asia | Middle East| Lisbon | Portugal
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE
Has Polar Shift caused Global Warming and Climate Change? | PSI Intl

and,

Second, has the scientific community always been completely accurate in all of it's hypothesis's?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Right out of the gate is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (based on failed modeling) and not one lick of empirical evidence... Bravo... You sir, are an idiot..

 

[SSDD]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Since there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...I will ask again...what physical evidence supports the claim that our CO2 emissions are the principle, or even a significant cause of global warming?

Why not simply admit that you simply can't produce any evidence to support the claim because none exists...consensus is hardly evidence of anything scientific.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone ever notice how alarmists tend to avoid any discussion that involves actual evidence like it was the plague?....and those who don't, offer up the same old logical fallacies that they believe represent something like evidence?...

Consensus...as if that were imperial evidence of anything more than group think when it exists in the absence of an overwhelming body of observed, measured, incontrovertible evidence.

 

[jc456]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

There is no such published paper of EMPIRICAL based research to support it. If there were, there wouldn't be HUNDREDS of NEW climate models, with NEW emission scenarios be published every 5 years in the IPCC report.

There are many published papers using a lot of unverified modeling constructs, which means a lot of assumption, Kridging and infilling to make a half baked premise that CO2 is the dominant source of warming since the 1970's. It is IMPOSSIBLE since the increase of energy outflow from the planet always exceeds the postulated warm forcing increase of CO2.

CO2 absorb and release IR energy, no heat is produced in the process, no change at all in its energy state if it emitted the same way it was absorbed.

Climate models do NOT have demonstrated forecast skill, which is why every 5 years we get a new 100 + climate models in the IPCC report, it has become a waste of time continuing this line of failures. It is now a money trail and nothing more.

No, no, their claim is CO2 adds energy. Your point is it doesn’t. You think one of these punks can prove just that?

 

[sealybobo]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

That's not science, hun

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Any links ?


.

The evidence is under my pinky

 

[Sunsettommy]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

You can't answer post one either.

You ARE the idiot for trying to deflect from it with your misleading and messed up link.

Snicker.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

There is no such published paper of EMPIRICAL based research to support it. If there were, there wouldn't be HUNDREDS of NEW climate models, with NEW emission scenarios be published every 5 years in the IPCC report.

There are many published papers using a lot of unverified modeling constructs, which means a lot of assumption, Kridging and infilling to make a half baked premise that CO2 is the dominant source of warming since the 1970's. It is IMPOSSIBLE since the increase of energy outflow from the planet always exceeds the postulated warm forcing increase of CO2.

CO2 absorb and release IR energy, no heat is produced in the process, no change at all in its energy state if it emitted the same way it was absorbed.

Climate models do NOT have demonstrated forecast skill, which is why every 5 years we get a new 100 + climate models in the IPCC report, it has become a waste of time continuing this line of failures. It is now a money trail and nothing more.

I LOL'd when IPCC 5 initially reported that I think 92% of the "Warming" was "trapped by the oceans" They've since retracted their own failed "Scientific consensus"

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

Which part of that do you think amounts to physical evidence that supports the contention that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

I asked a simple question...what's the matter, can't provide some simple physical evidence? What is science without physical evidence?

 

[sealybobo]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

Which part of that do you think amounts to physical evidence that supports the contention that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

I asked a simple question...what's the matter, can't provide some simple physical evidence? What is science without physical evidence?

All of it is evidence. I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things. Human caused climate change is changing our planet. All the scientists agree. The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters. Wake up.

Physical? I don't know. What physical evidence is there for evolution? Do you doubt evolution? What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man? Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.

 

[sealybobo]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

 

[Dick Foster]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Is this anything like the same group that once insisted that the earth was flat, the universe revolved about the earth and that it was simply ludicrous that man could ever fly, reach the moon, split atoms etc. etc.? Burn any witches lately, you moron?