Why Co2 Can Not Cause Further Warming...

[Saigon]

It geniunely amazes me that this discussion is STILL going on.

At this stage - is there a single person on this board who HONESTLY believes that science has got climate change wrong?

I really don't think so. It is just theatre and politics, just as it was 10 years ago.

Really guys - at the point you stop believing what you post, there is little chance anyone else will believe it.

 

[Saigon]

There are over 13,000 peer reviewed studies out there that weren't withdrawn that say AGW is valid. How many denier claims have been shown to be complete shite? 99%? ALL of them?

Exactly so, and everyone knows it.

The question used to be - how long can deniers hold out before they realise that the world has changed before their eyes?

The question now is - why do deniers pretend to believe 'theories' that they so obviously understand are nonsense?

 

[jc456]

There are over 13,000 peer reviewed studies out there that weren't withdrawn that say AGW is valid. How many denier claims have been shown to be complete shite? 99%? ALL of them?

Exactly so, and everyone knows it.

The question used to be - how long can deniers hold out before they realise that the world has changed before their eyes?

The question now is - why do deniers pretend to believe 'theories' that they so obviously understand are nonsense?

ahem, the question is why have 99% of the models been wrong for eighteen years. Why were the years 1940 to 1970 cool, and, why are the supposed geniuses have to alter the data of past records. Seems to be some splainen that needs to happen and them there geniuses refuse to answer. And I'm a denier. hahahahahaahhahaahahaha I'm so WiNNiNg...

 

[Saigon]

Jc -

Do not mistake being horribly confused for 'winning'.

There are around 60 major scientific bodies on earth - not one of them agrees with you. So no - you are not 'winning'.

 

[jc456]

Jc -

Do not mistake being horribly confused for 'winning'.

There are around 60 major scientific bodies on earth - not one of them agrees with you. So no - you are not 'winning'.

And yet you have no proof of any of what you claim concerning man made 120PPM of CO2 driving climate. I'd say I'm WiNNiNg friggn big time!!!!!!!!

 

[Crick]

There was enough evidence to convince all the world's scientific bodies that AGW was valid.

You will have a small win on your hands when you understand the difference between evidence and proof and how the scientific method works within the natural sciences.

Look up "falsification" for a starter. Or, the phrase "All swans are white".

 

[jc456]

There was enough evidence to convince all the world's scientific bodies that AGW was valid.

You will have a small win on your hands when you understand the difference between evidence and proof and how the scientific method works within the natural sciences.

Look up "falsification" for a starter. Or, the phrase "All swans are white".

dude, there you go again. You use the terms all and everyone all the dam time. First, do you really believe what you wrote? All the world's scientific bodies. Really, you believe that?

Just that alone makes me such a WiNNeR..Thank you, I know you'd like to be like me.

 

[flacaltenn]

Jc -

Do not mistake being horribly confused for 'winning'.

There are around 60 major scientific bodies on earth - not one of them agrees with you. So no - you are not 'winning'.

What EXACTLY did these bodies say? And how long ago was that exactly? Did they all agree what the temperature would be 2060? Did they poll their membership?

Are you aware that the Australian Geophys TRIED to update and issue a NEW statement --- but this time the membership intervened and stopped the process COLD with questions and proceedural bickering?

The days of authority shopping are long over.. There never was a MEANINGFUL consensus on any of this. Other than the Earth was experiencing moderate warming and man MIGHT be making a contribution to the process in an UNSPECIFIED amount..

What you missed Saigon -- is the END of the play.. This is the after-party and reception..

 

[initforme]

Well let's pollute so we can have Beijing air quality. Some think China is a great economic model. They know zero about economics or pollution.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, you're supposed to pretend it's about science, instead of it being entirely about you being a bedwetting political nutter. That's Denier 101, "Lie by pretending you're not solely motivated by the edicts of your political cult."

You are obviously getting more and more bitter. It's part of the sanity death spiral that so many deniers here are entering. A lot of them aren't even bothering to hide their calls for violence. They lost on the science, they lost on the politics, so now they see violence as their last recourse.

More PROJECTION from a moron bedwetter alarmist..

Your not even worth responding too..

 

[Saigon]

Flac -

Of the 60 major scientific organisations, 59 currently confirm that climate change is the result of human activity. One (American) organisation is neutral.

At this stage I think it is fair to say that most genuine debate on this topic started to dry up 5-10 years ago as the sheer weight of evidence became overwhelming. The debate amongst those interested in this topic is no longer if climate change occurs or if humans are causing it, but is about what solutions are available, and how to implement those solutions.

Really - the world has moved on. If you don't want to, that's fine, too. I just don't find the political side of this debate useful.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Flac -

Of the 60 major scientific organisations, 59 currently confirm that climate change is the result of human activity. One (American) organisation is neutral.

At this stage I think it is fair to say that most genuine debate on this topic started to dry up 5-10 years ago as the sheer weight of evidence became overwhelming. The debate amongst those interested in this topic is no longer if climate change occurs or if humans are causing it, but is about what solutions are available, and how to implement those solutions.

Really - the world has moved on. If you don't want to, that's fine, too. I just don't find the political side of this debate useful.

The exposing of the fabrications as lies really killed the debate as politicians no longer want to be associated with the failed lies. Its amazing when the liars are called out and their pseudoscience tested, then laid waste that they would demand that the science is settled.. Being exposed as liars and frauds is generally a career ender..

 

[MaryL]

I hate to tell you this, but yes, global warming is here and it is affecting all of us. Charts and graphs and websites I don't need, the facts are right out side your bloody window, all you need is a pair of eyes. This is like the passengers on the Titanic arguing whether or not the unsinkable ship is sinking. Please.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I hate to tell you this, but yes, global warming is here and it is affecting all of us. Charts and graphs and websites I don't need, the facts are right out side your bloody window, all you need is a pair of eyes. This is like the passengers on the Titanic arguing whether or not the unsinkable ship is sinking. Please.

AGW is Bull Shit. You cannot be a conservative because conservatives base their conclusions on empirical evidence and FACTS. Only liberals base their beliefs on lies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Jc -

Do not mistake being horribly confused for 'winning'.

There are around 60 major scientific bodies on earth - not one of them agrees with you. So no - you are not 'winning'.

LOL...

What I find really funny is the belief by those political bodies that they somehow STOPPED NATURAL VARIATION and that everything since 1950 was all man made...

I am am all ears... Please show us how you did it and how you verified the contribution. Please provide links, math, datasets and other relevant facts..

 

[elektra]

How come you folks don't ask to see one study?

Why do all of you link to articles?

Can any of you tell the difference between a study and a report of a study.

I think not.

 

[Kosh]

It geniunely amazes me that this discussion is STILL going on.

At this stage - is there a single person on this board who HONESTLY believes that science has got climate change wrong?

I really don't think so. It is just theatre and politics, just as it was 10 years ago.

Really guys - at the point you stop believing what you post, there is little chance anyone else will believe it.

Not only is this poster far left, they are also an AGW cult member..

There ahs been zero scientific evidence to prove that CO2 drives climate like the AGW lore says.

Even James Hansen who came up with theory in the late 80's still has not released his datasets with source code that proves this religion.

And yes when European nations that control their science to produce what they want, well what od you expect. They needed to come up with a new way to tax folks and they found it through AGW. They wanted to tax the US so they could continue today for their over bloated social programs.

But then again anyone not seeing that the "green" in green energy or climate change propaganda is color of money, then they are truly blind.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How come you folks don't ask to see one study?

Why do all of you link to articles?

Can any of you tell the difference between a study and a report of a study.

I think not.

The answer is simple. there are no studies which prove empirically AGW. All they have are articles. The studies I have used they deny are real because they were not"peer reviewed" by their people..

You cant win with these zealots..

 

[jc456]

Jc -

Do not mistake being horribly confused for 'winning'.

There are around 60 major scientific bodies on earth - not one of them agrees with you. So no - you are not 'winning'.

What EXACTLY did these bodies say? And how long ago was that exactly? Did they all agree what the temperature would be 2060? Did they poll their membership?

Are you aware that the Australian Geophys TRIED to update and issue a NEW statement --- but this time the membership intervened and stopped the process COLD with questions and proceedural bickering?

The days of authority shopping are long over.. There never was a MEANINGFUL consensus on any of this. Other than the Earth was experiencing moderate warming and man MIGHT be making a contribution to the process in an UNSPECIFIED amount..

What you missed Saigon -- is the END of the play.. This is the after-party and reception..

so I supposed he has the 60 names of the scientific bodies? Let's see the list and check them out! I'll go with that. He should provide the list. Let's see what it is they all agree on.

 

[jc456]

Flac -

Of the 60 major scientific organisations, 59 currently confirm that climate change is the result of human activity. One (American) organisation is neutral.

At this stage I think it is fair to say that most genuine debate on this topic started to dry up 5-10 years ago as the sheer weight of evidence became overwhelming. The debate amongst those interested in this topic is no longer if climate change occurs or if humans are causing it, but is about what solutions are available, and how to implement those solutions.

Really - the world has moved on. If you don't want to, that's fine, too. I just don't find the political side of this debate useful.

So if they have all the evidence, what is the solution? Where are they at. I know I haven't seen anything, five to ten years ago. Dude you make me laugh. Name the 59. I'm we're so WiNNiNg........