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.
And there were no Ice Poles, and ergo Sea Level would be 230 feet Higher.As the dinosaurs roamed the planet, their flourished in co2 levels of 2,400ppm+, and the climate was 4 to 5 Deg Celsius higher than today. Then unfortunately, an asteroid wiped them out.
For some reason, 420ppm and the climate freaks we're going extinct in a matter of years.
Guys, how long has the earth been flat fir you?Water vapor is a more powerful GHG that CO2. H2O is Mike Tyson and CO2 is Woody Allen
The "theory" of Manmade Global Climate Warming Change is that the relatively recent CO2 increase from 280 to 420PPM will cause an extinction level event rivaled by the dinosaur killing asteroid. "
But..."Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat." Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
If H2O is more powerful where are the studies showing H2O back in 1850? What are they today? Does an additional 100PPM H2O raise temperature more that CO2
I really HATE when that happens...Guys, how long has the earth been flat fir you?
Are you still missing distant relatives who fell off?
Cult ? cults are composed of low mentality pin heads who worship a bullshit artist. Humpers, cultist…you’re all the sameTake your meds, AGW Cult Loon
Apparently, it happens all the time with denialism.I really HATE when that happens...
Never produce any evidence? Are you braindead? Open your copy of AR6's Physical Science Basis. Go to Chapter 7.5 on page 992. There the discussion will begin on Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity and Tranient Climate Response (ECS and TCR). It goes on for another 19 pages. I guaran-goddamn-tee you that you will find some "evidence" there to support their conclusions.Temperatures supposedly rise 3C for every doubling of CO2 but the AGW Cult can never produce any evidence of this because they’re just picking numbers out of the air.
The actual increase in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560PPM is much closer to .003C than it is to 3C
No, thanks!Never produce any evidence? Are you braindead? Open your copy of AR6's Physical Science Basis. Go to Chapter 7.5 on page 992. There the discussion will begin on Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity and Tranient Climate Response (ECS and TCR). It goes on for another 19 pages. I guaran-goddamn-tee you that you will find some "evidence" there to support their conclusions.
So, you believe in a very level earth.Temperatures supposedly rise 3C for every doubling of CO2 but the AGW Cult can never produce any evidence of this because they’re just picking numbers out of the air.
The actual increase in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560PPM is much closer to .003C than it is to 3C
I believe you’re using the squid ink defenseSo, you believe in a very level earth.
can you see end to end then?
Seriously, you can see end to end right.I believe you’re using the squid ink defense
Deeerrrrr is an acceptable answer!Seriously, you can see end to end right.
Truth
social...
There is an enormous difference between "no evidence" and "I'm not going to look at any evidence"No, thanks!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs!!
The claim being made is that doubling CO2 from these levels will raise temperatures 3C, you need to show a proof of that!
There is an enormous difference between "no evidence" and "I'm not going to look at any evidence"
First, for the umpteenth time, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence. When I tried to show you the specific evidence for the specific IPCC conclusion you were complaining about, you tell me you won't look at it. That is hypocrisy at its absolute finest. And that makes it a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything, doesn't it. It also makes you a bit of an ignorant, childish asshole.
I showed you where you can find pages and pages of evidence but you refuse to look at it. So don't tell us there isn't shred of evidence because that is coming very, very close to a knowing and willful lie.The central thesis of AGW is that CO2 "traps heat" and "raises temperature" Maybe it does, but way out in 3 decimal places at these low levels. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the 3C increase per doubling claim. It's absurd!
And how would you know the evidence is not extraordinary if you refuse to look at it?No, thanks!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs!!
The claim being made is that doubling CO2 from these levels will raise temperatures 3C, you need to show a proof of that!
And how would you know the evidence is not extraordinary if you refuse to look at it?
You apparently have never read the portion of the AR6 Physical Science Basis that I pointed out despite the fact that it clearly and thoroughly explains the evidence and reasoning behind the change in ECS that you had JUST complained about.You think I just started looking at this today?
It's very hard to take you seriously when you demand to see something and then refuse to look at it when THAT SPECIFIC THING is presented to you.I remember when Scarfetta and West randomly assigned only about 30% of the "warming" to the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky. Just a hunch, I think was their explanation
I've been looking since IPCC before IPCC had to add in the "heat trapped (like a rat! in the (deep) ocean)" to make up for the decline they were hiding!
I've been asking for evidence of CO2's magical temperature raising abilities for 30 years! I am unmoved by the models and paid-for studies.
Dear Flat EarthersThe central thesis of AGW is that CO2 "traps heat" and "raises temperature" Maybe it does, but way out in 3 decimal places at these low levels. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the 3C increase per doubling claim. It's absurd!
Crick, I’ll read the 20 pages in IPCC. If there’s no proof and only computer models and nonsense, I’m going to ignore youYou apparently have never read the portion of the AR6 Physical Science Basis that I pointed out despite the fact that it clearly and thoroughly explains the evidence and reasoning behind the change in ECS that you had JUST complained about.
It's very hard to take you seriously when you demand to see something and then refuse to look at it when THAT SPECIFIC THING is presented to you.
