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.
When YOU mindlessly repeat the articles of your FAITH but cannot even acknowledge the evidence that casts your faith into doubt, as you always do, it's without doubt that you are merely a hack cultist AGW Faither.
The articles I quote are not of faith, they are the products of the exercise of the scientific method by the world's mainstream climate scientists.
By the way if one large ocean getting warmer leads to in[c]reased winds that cool down another large ocean, that sounds like a system at work.
And...?
The articles I quote are not of faith, they are the products of the exercise of the scientific method by the world's mainstream climate scientists.
And yet not one experiment to show what 120 PPM of CO2 will do to temperatues. And he backs science? hahahahahahaahaha.. lamo claims all over this forum. Yet I get a chuckle from the warmest nutjobs. WiNNiNgClimate science doesn't engage in the scientific method....Tell me, following the scientific method, how many times might a hypothesis be allowed to fail before it is scrapped and practitioners go back to the basics to see where they missed the boat?
The articles I quote are not of faith, they are the products of the exercise of the scientific method by the world's mainstream climate scientists.
Climate science doesn't engage in the scientific method.
Tell me, following the scientific method, how many times might a hypothesis be allowed to fail before it is scrapped and practitioners go back to the basics to see where they missed the boat?
Scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove a theory. AGW has altered data fed through flawed models that are 100% accurate, but only retroactively. Oh, and they have"Consensus"
oh experiments? Oh goody, let's see the one that shows 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase or climate problem. Great, about fnnn time they did one. Let's see it!Scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove a theory. AGW has altered data fed through flawed models that are 100% accurate, but only retroactively. Oh, and they have"Consensus"
AGW is supported by mountains of empirical data.
The acceptance it receives from the vast majority of scientists is based on the success with which experiments have shown it to be the best explanation for the observations. No one has been able to falsify it and you have no alternative explanation for the observations.
Argument from authority is a valid argument if one's authorities are actually experts and if a consensus actually exists. The consensus for AGW among the world's climate scientists satisfy that precisely.
I didn't think you could. Thanks for showing that you are indeed the Denier. Nice photo, when did you have it taken? were you in the middle of a good thought? hahahhahahaahhahaha you're so LoSiNgDeniers
oh experiments? Oh goody, let's see the one that shows 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase or climate problem. Great, about fnnn time they did one. Let's see it!Scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove a theory. AGW has altered data fed through flawed models that are 100% accurate, but only retroactively. Oh, and they have"Consensus"
AGW is supported by mountains of empirical data.
The acceptance it receives from the vast majority of scientists is based on the success with which experiments have shown it to be the best explanation for the observations. No one has been able to falsify it and you have no alternative explanation for the observations.
Argument from authority is a valid argument if one's authorities are actually experts and if a consensus actually exists. The consensus for AGW among the world's climate scientists satisfy that precisely.
Don't dare to argue with me unless you are an idiot.
AR5....not a lab experiment. It's the collected works of the AGWCult pointing at stories on the Weather Channel and shrieking MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!oh experiments? Oh goody, let's see the one that shows 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase or climate problem. Great, about fnnn time they did one. Let's see it!Scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove a theory. AGW has altered data fed through flawed models that are 100% accurate, but only retroactively. Oh, and they have"Consensus"
AGW is supported by mountains of empirical data.
The acceptance it receives from the vast majority of scientists is based on the success with which experiments have shown it to be the best explanation for the observations. No one has been able to falsify it and you have no alternative explanation for the observations.
Argument from authority is a valid argument if one's authorities are actually experts and if a consensus actually exists. The consensus for AGW among the world's climate scientists satisfy that precisely.
Go read AR5. Let us know when you think you've refuted the whole thing.
AR5....not a lab experiment. It's the collected works of the AGWCult pointing at stories on the Weather Channel and shrieking MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
so Jiminie, Why not cut the crap and just paste the text from the AR5 report that backs your story. I dare you to. LoSiNgoh experiments? Oh goody, let's see the one that shows 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase or climate problem. Great, about fnnn time they did one. Let's see it!Scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove a theory. AGW has altered data fed through flawed models that are 100% accurate, but only retroactively. Oh, and they have"Consensus"
AGW is supported by mountains of empirical data.
The acceptance it receives from the vast majority of scientists is based on the success with which experiments have shown it to be the best explanation for the observations. No one has been able to falsify it and you have no alternative explanation for the observations.
Argument from authority is a valid argument if one's authorities are actually experts and if a consensus actually exists. The consensus for AGW among the world's climate scientists satisfy that precisely.
Go read AR5. Let us know when you think you've refuted the whole thing.
Jiminie, so you can't provide the text of that document to which you are arguing for? I see. You LoSiNg is so special daily for me. Y-e-s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You've been provided the link on multiple occasions. Even if you lost it, it's easy as pie to look up. It's completely obvious to everyone here, on both sides of this argument that you are afraid to try to read it because you don't have sufficient education to understand that level of basic science. If you'd like to retain the slightest shred of common respect around her - from everyone - go to the site and start reading. If you've got questions, ask someone. Or just ask the internet. There's tons of educational material out there.
Jiminie, so you can't provide the text of that document to which you are arguing for? I see. You LoSiNg is so special daily for me. Y-e-s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
