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.
They have done Both lab and field work on GW/AGW...How much lab work was done on tobacco? Lots
How much lab work was done on manmade global climate warming change? None
In which case, according to rightard dumb fuck 'thinking', as no lab work has been done on black holes they are a figment of a cult.Science has lab work, cults have consensus
CERN has actually done the lab work and created a mini balck hole. Your AGW Cult avoids the lab like Dracula avoids sunrise and for the same reason, it will melt youIn which case, according to rightard dumb fuck 'thinking', as no lab work has been done on black holes they are a figment of a cult.Science has lab work, cults have consensus
You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?I wonder where rightard dumb fucks imagine the core samples of ice get analysed for CO2. In lumber yards, maybe?
Really? Link?CERN has actually done the lab work and created a mini balck hole
What's this? Are you now saying lab work for AGW has been done?You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?
The theory of greenhouse gases?The lab seems unkind to your Moonbat "theory"
What's this? Are you now saying lab work for AGW has been done?You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?
They have done Both lab and field work on GW/AGW...How much lab work was done on tobacco? Lots
How much lab work was done on manmade global climate warming change? None
and there is still no proven mechanism for Smoking causing Lung Cancer. Just it happens alot/high corrleation.
Plenty for a Warning even more than 20 years ago.
The debates were similar, with Tobacco execs/'scientists'/deniers claiming there was just correlation... correctly.
It's a surer bet Greenhouse Gases cause warming (by definition) than tobacco causes Lung Cncer.
`
What's this? Are you now saying lab work for AGW has been done?You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?
What? Measuring CO2 in ice cores is 'imaginary'?What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?
Lab experiments try to limit condition to a single variable which in the case of AGW would be varying CO2 from 280 to 400ppm to test for effect on temperature.What? Measuring CO2 in ice cores is 'imaginary'?What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?
But you haven't given the link to the CERN lab work which you say validates the existence of black holes that are otherwise the figment of a cult. Reality got your tongue?
That was rhetorical. Really I know you are playing 'Invincible Ignorance' where no answer is satisfactory, the default position of rightard dumb fuck AGW deniers.
This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.
Go to it.
I wonder where rightard dumb fucks imagine the core samples of ice get analysed for CO2. In lumber yards, maybe?
Lab experiments try to limit condition to a single variable which in the case of AGW would be varying CO2 from 280 to 400ppm to test for effect on temperature.What? Measuring CO2 in ice cores is 'imaginary'?What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?
But you haven't given the link to the CERN lab work which you say validates the existence of black holes that are otherwise the figment of a cult. Reality got your tongue?
That was rhetorical. Really I know you are playing 'Invincible Ignorance' where no answer is satisfactory, the default position of rightard dumb fuck AGW deniers.
This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.
Go to it.
Get to it
Your 'green house' gas theory is crap... Please show where any of the theory has been proven correct and the links made with empirical evidence.This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.
Your 'green house' gas theory is crap... Please show where any of the theory has been proven correct and the links made with empirical evidence.This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.
Maybe we can pause to agree on terms. Let's say we're talking about the "greenhouse effect"--...refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory...
You simply described MASS, nothing more. The mass of the atmosphere will slow energy release.Maybe we can pause to agree on terms. Let's say we're talking about the "greenhouse effect"--...refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory...
The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) they will radiate energy in all directions.
--and if we went with that definition we'd have to say that virtually all atmospheric constiuants are 'radiatively active gases' to one degree or another. From there we could agree on how such an effect goes, but my bet is that none of us dispute the existence of the effect
