Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court

[SSDD]

spooky action at a distance

Yes, spooky action at a distance.

But only for the type of photon that carries force instead of just energy.

Still talking about them as if they were real...and as if you had the slightest idea of what they are doing at any particular time...

I think you are completely incapable of separating real from imaginary. There is a name for that....look it up.

 

[RealDave]

Seriously? It's 200 times hotter than the supposed heat source.

Great. Why do you feel that violates any laws of physics?

And more importantly, why can we see the Sun's surface (that means we see photons from the surface) if "cool matter photons" never travel toward, let alone through, hotter matter?

What powers the corona, magic beans?

magic beans

can every buddy remember when past prezbo Obama

promised the world "Magic solar energy Beans"

to solve our fossil fuel crisis

--LOL

So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

 

[SSDD]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

 

[IanC]

Great. Why do you feel that violates any laws of physics?

And more importantly, why can we see the Sun's surface (that means we see photons from the surface) if "cool matter photons" never travel toward, let alone through, hotter matter?

What powers the corona, magic beans?

magic beans

can every buddy remember when past prezbo Obama

promised the world "Magic solar energy Beans"

to solve our fossil fuel crisis

--LOL

So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

I think more people should have attacked Obama for choosing Holdren as his scientific advisor.

 

[RealDave]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

 

[IanC]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

 

[RealDave]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

 

[IanC]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The Greenhouse Effect is real. The CO2 component of the Greenhouse Effect is real, and calculated to be about 1C/doubling.

Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.

The IPCC commissioned a report that found no attribution of weather extremes to CO2 and its warming influence.

So far the only things that can be blamed on CO2 are increased crop yields and greening of the planet.

Predictions of the future are still made from models that produce 3C of warming for 2xCO2. The models are obviously wrong, they should be fixed to realign with reality

 

[mamooth]

Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.

Nobody says sensitivity is < 2C, being that reality flatly contradicts such a claim.

Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C of warming.

Therefore, transient climate sensitivity is 2.0C,

Total sensitivity has to be significantly higher than transient sensitivity, so it must be significantly above 2.0C.

 

[RealDave]

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

Who said tens of trillions? On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good. Are you really that stupid?

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?

 

[SSDD]

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science

Sorry guy, but not even close. Hell, you can't even come up with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability. Pick a bit of "proven" science and if you look, you won't be able to avoid the observed, measured data that supports the science...that is how it got to be proven...not a single piece of observed, measured, data supporting AGW over natural variability.

2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.

A change in temperature is evidence of a change in temperature...not evidence of what caused the change.

3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?

Sure...they show CO2 is increasing...although, research is being published that strongly suggests that the increase has little to do with us...and still, not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data that demonstrates that additional CO2 does anything...there is still the fact that ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 multiple times higher than it is now.

4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?

Meaningless unless you have some sort of actual observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that our CO2, or any CO2 is altering the global climate....got any?...Of course you don't because there is none.

5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

Well, theres the thing real dave, and it should be ringing alarm bells in your head..and it would if you weren't such a dupe...we know so little about the climate, that we can't put a finger on any of the huge swings in climate that the earth has experienced over the ages...We have ideas, and hypotheses, but no real idea of what causes the climate to change. The idea that this time it is CO2 but all the other times over billions of years that saw far more change than we have seen it was something else is idiot thinking...actually, it is just idiocy and doesn't involve thinking at all.

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

Of course you do. If you were paying attention, then you would be well aware that there is absolutely zero observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. You are apparently unaware of that fact precisely because you sit around with your thumb up your ass and ignore the scientific literature...the only thing you pay attention to, apparently is what the media tells you...and your alarmist wackjob political cronies.

And the idea that you have researched is both laughable and a bald faced lie...had you done any actual research, and actually seen any observed, measured, quantified data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, you would have no problem bringing it here to give me a big old bitch slap with....but you haven't, because you can't, because you have never seen any such data, because you have never bothered to look at the literature...you just talk...and make pronouncements of your faith...actual evidence...you don't have it and have never seen it, and apparently aren't bright enough to wonder why you have never seen it.

 

[SSDD]

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

CO2 is not a factor at all beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere...unless, of course, you would like to demonstrate that it is with some observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that it is.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

Guess you must be the king of the sofa kings if you believe CO2 causes warming when ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 2000ppm.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Got any actual measurements of a greenhouse effect? Can you quantify it and support the figure with observed, measured data? Of course you can't...Got any explanation why the calculations for the greenhouse effect don't get you even close to the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, and don't work here either without an ad hoc (that means made up) fudge factor? Any idea?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

If the understanding of the physics of the movement of energy through our system was even accurate in the least, the models would require very little adjustment...they are failing miserably, because they still view CO2 as a player in the climate. It isn't. The idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is dominated by a ridiculously wide margin by convection is at least as stupid as it sounds...

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

Got a single shred...just one little bit...just one small piece of observed, measured quantified data to support that claim?...just one?....even just a little one? Anything at all? Of course you don't...and it seems that you aren't bright enough to wonder why.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

Who said tens of trillions? On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good. Are you really that stupid?

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?

Who said tens of trillions?

The IPCC said $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

On what????

Windmills, payoffs to poor countries, private plane trips to fancy meetings for bigwigs.

Are you really that stupid?

No. I'm not stupid enough to waste $76 trillion for a non-catastrophe.

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

Excellent! Stop trying to waste my money on stupid things that won't work.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels

The same that it would cost if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.

Nobody says sensitivity is < 2C, being that reality flatly contradicts such a claim.

Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C of warming.

Therefore, transient climate sensitivity is 2.0C,

Total sensitivity has to be significantly higher than transient sensitivity, so it must be significantly above 2.0C.

So when CO2 was 5000PPM the temperature 40C warmer?

 

[IanC]

Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.

Nobody says sensitivity is < 2C, being that reality flatly contradicts such a claim.

Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C of warming.

Therefore, transient climate sensitivity is 2.0C,

Total sensitivity has to be significantly higher than transient sensitivity, so it must be significantly above 2.0C.

So when CO2 was 5000PPM the temperature 40C warmer?

400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400. Three and a half doubling.

Less than four degrees @ 1C per 2xCO2

Less than seven degrees @ the 1.6-2.0 recent climate sensitivity estimates based on real data.

Less than eleven degrees @ the IPCC median range of 3.0

And we couldn't reach 5000 ppm CO2 if we burnt all the fossil fuel reserves tomorrow.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Great. Why do you feel that violates any laws of physics?

And more importantly, why can we see the Sun's surface (that means we see photons from the surface) if "cool matter photons" never travel toward, let alone through, hotter matter?

What powers the corona, magic beans?

magic beans

can every buddy remember when past prezbo Obama

promised the world "Magic solar energy Beans"

to solve our fossil fuel crisis

--LOL

So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

solar energy is not the end all ya stupid dope

i have a back up system

i attacked obama energy policies because they sucked

 

[RealDave]

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science

Sorry guy, but not even close. Hell, you can't even come up with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability. Pick a bit of "proven" science and if you look, you won't be able to avoid the observed, measured data that supports the science...that is how it got to be proven...not a single piece of observed, measured, data supporting AGW over natural variability.

2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.

A change in temperature is evidence of a change in temperature...not evidence of what caused the change.

3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?

Sure...they show CO2 is increasing...although, research is being published that strongly suggests that the increase has little to do with us...and still, not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data that demonstrates that additional CO2 does anything...there is still the fact that ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 multiple times higher than it is now.

4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?

Meaningless unless you have some sort of actual observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that our CO2, or any CO2 is altering the global climate....got any?...Of course you don't because there is none.

5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

Well, theres the thing real dave, and it should be ringing alarm bells in your head..and it would if you weren't such a dupe...we know so little about the climate, that we can't put a finger on any of the huge swings in climate that the earth has experienced over the ages...We have ideas, and hypotheses, but no real idea of what causes the climate to change. The idea that this time it is CO2 but all the other times over billions of years that saw far more change than we have seen it was something else is idiot thinking...actually, it is just idiocy and doesn't involve thinking at all.

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

Of course you do. If you were paying attention, then you would be well aware that there is absolutely zero observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. You are apparently unaware of that fact precisely because you sit around with your thumb up your ass and ignore the scientific literature...the only thing you pay attention to, apparently is what the media tells you...and your alarmist wackjob political cronies.

And the idea that you have researched is both laughable and a bald faced lie...had you done any actual research, and actually seen any observed, measured, quantified data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, you would have no problem bringing it here to give me a big old bitch slap with....but you haven't, because you can't, because you have never seen any such data, because you have never bothered to look at the literature...you just talk...and make pronouncements of your faith...actual evidence...you don't have it and have never seen it, and apparently aren't bright enough to wonder why you have never seen it.

 

[RealDave]

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science

Sorry guy, but not even close. Hell, you can't even come up with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability. Pick a bit of "proven" science and if you look, you won't be able to avoid the observed, measured data that supports the science...that is how it got to be proven...not a single piece of observed, measured, data supporting AGW over natural variability.

2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.

A change in temperature is evidence of a change in temperature...not evidence of what caused the change.

3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?

Sure...they show CO2 is increasing...although, research is being published that strongly suggests that the increase has little to do with us...and still, not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data that demonstrates that additional CO2 does anything...there is still the fact that ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 multiple times higher than it is now.

4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?

Meaningless unless you have some sort of actual observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that our CO2, or any CO2 is altering the global climate....got any?...Of course you don't because there is none.

5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

Well, theres the thing real dave, and it should be ringing alarm bells in your head..and it would if you weren't such a dupe...we know so little about the climate, that we can't put a finger on any of the huge swings in climate that the earth has experienced over the ages...We have ideas, and hypotheses, but no real idea of what causes the climate to change. The idea that this time it is CO2 but all the other times over billions of years that saw far more change than we have seen it was something else is idiot thinking...actually, it is just idiocy and doesn't involve thinking at all.

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

Of course you do. If you were paying attention, then you would be well aware that there is absolutely zero observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. You are apparently unaware of that fact precisely because you sit around with your thumb up your ass and ignore the scientific literature...the only thing you pay attention to, apparently is what the media tells you...and your alarmist wackjob political cronies.

And the idea that you have researched is both laughable and a bald faced lie...had you done any actual research, and actually seen any observed, measured, quantified data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, you would have no problem bringing it here to give me a big old bitch slap with....but you haven't, because you can't, because you have never seen any such data, because you have never bothered to look at the literature...you just talk...and make pronouncements of your faith...actual evidence...you don't have it and have never seen it, and apparently aren't bright enough to wonder why you have never seen it.

Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

The date is out there.

 

[RealDave]

What powers the corona, magic beans?

magic beans

can every buddy remember when past prezbo Obama

promised the world "Magic solar energy Beans"

to solve our fossil fuel crisis

--LOL

So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

solar energy is not the end all ya stupid dope

i have a back up system

i attacked obama energy policies because they sucked

Look fuckboy, I never said solar was the only answer.