CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[jc456]

A weather man is not a "leading climate scientist".

Not by a long shot

Name another. I’ve been waiting for a demofk to name one! Still zero response

 

[bripat9643]

Name another. I’ve been waiting for a demofk to name one! Still zero response

Only those already inducted into the cult are legitimate to voice an opinion on the subject.

 

[jc456]

Ha ha
That post is short hand for, making up shit.
Let’s play your game….Your quote and I’m just “paraphrasing”.
”I’m …a………….numskull.“
So you admit, you’re a numb skull.

Name another

 

[jc456]

Only those already inducted into the cult are legitimate to voice an opinion on the subject.

I’ve never seen them name an actual climate scientist

 

[Lesh]

I’ve never seen them name an actual climate scientist

They have been listed above us stupid fuck

 

[jc456]

They have been listed above us stupid fuck

Post one name then

 

[Lesh]

Post one name then

You’re a lazy fuck

 

[Dagosa]

Name another

Harvard…..

 

[jc456]

You’re a lazy fuck

Seems that’s you! You’re reluctant to post that name. I don’t read minds

 

[jc456]

Harvard…..

What name at Harvard? You know human?

 

[Dagosa]

"Consensus" is a political construct. No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument.

As for the rest, I will have to review the literature. You dumped a huge load of claims on me.

That’s bullshit. You really don’t know what consensus is do you ? When you deny consensus, you’re saying that the more trials and evidence brought forth by more science in agreement, the LESS valid a theory is ?

That’s about as stupid as one can be. With that line of thinking, we should only agree with the fewest, uninformed idiots that make up shit. That’s what Humpers do.

 

[Dagosa]

What name at Harvard? You know human?

On any topic, all the scientists postEd in the references of consensus agreed upon in the report on a subject.
All you have to do is look at any articles posted by Harvard ( or related climate research institutions) on their web site and examine the names of the researchers involved. NO ONE SCIENTIST is a valid argument.
It’s the most ignorant thing to do to ask for; an individual name of persons who support a topic as big as AGW is absurd.

Institutions are the primary indicator of consensus. You are totally science illiterate.

 

[jc456]

That’s bullshit. You really don’t know what consensus is do you ? When you deny consensus, you’re saying that the more trials and evidence brought forth by more science in agreement, the LESS valid a theory is ?

That’s about as stupid as one can be. With that line of thinking, we should only agree with the fewest, uninformed idiots that make up shit. That’s what Humpers do.

No such thing as consensus in science. Science uses critical thinking and as such never reaches consensus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On any topic, all the scientists postEd in the references of consensus agreed upon in the report on a subject.
All you have to do is look at any articles posted by Harvard ( or related climate research institutions) on their web site and examine the names of the researchers involved. NO ONE SCIENTIST is a valid argument.
It’s the most ignorant thing to do to ask for; an individual name of persons who support a topic as big as AGW is absurd.

Institutions are the primary indicator of consensus. You are totally science illiterate.

What did they reach consensus on, specifically?

 

[Dagosa]

What did they reach consensus on, specifically?

Another infantile question. There are thousands of articles posted by Harvard and everyother related institution on AGW. Pick out a topic within it. Go to the Harvard Webb site, or anyother, and look for studies. You’ll get a plethora of references. Move along child. Maybe take a science course of pick up a text.

 

[bripat9643]

That’s bullshit. You really don’t know what consensus is do you ? When you deny consensus, you’re saying that the more trials and evidence brought forth by more science in agreement, the LESS valid a theory is ?

That’s about as stupid as one can be. With that line of thinking, we should only agree with the fewest, uninformed idiots that make up shit. That’s what Humpers do.

Yes, I do know what consensus is: Consensus isn't trials. It isn't evidence. it's not science. It's nothing more than popular opinion.

 

[jc456]

That’s bullshit. You really don’t know what consensus is do you ? When you deny consensus, you’re saying that the more trials and evidence brought forth by more science in agreement, the LESS valid a theory is ?

That’s about as stupid as one can be. With that line of thinking, we should only agree with the fewest, uninformed idiots that make up shit. That’s what Humpers do.

Science is based on critical thinking and such can’t ever be consensus

 

[Dagosa]

Yes, I do know what consensus is: Consensus isn't trials. It isn't evidence. it's not science. It's nothing more than popular opinion.

Dufus, no one said it was “trials“ fool. Consensus is just grneral agreement and scientist aren’t in genera agreement off the top of their head. That’s what you illiterates do. It comes about when other researchers also test the evidence and finding of others. Take a “reading for understanding” course. Look up , the “ scientific method”….along with potential energy and quit making up shitz.

 

[Dagosa]

Science is based on critical thinking and such can’t ever be consensus

Bullshit .
just sitting there jacking off and calling it critical thinking means nothing. All science is based upon trials and related activities. It isn’t a mind game stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another infantile question. There are thousands of articles posted by Harvard and everyother related institution on AGW. Pick out a topic within it. Go to the Harvard Webb site, or anyother, and look for studies. You’ll get a plethora of references. Move along child. Maybe take a science course of pick up a text.

You're infantile, you can't answer the question? LOL!