Hard Reality Approaches...

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, them thar computers are melting the polar ice cap, as well as that of Greenland and Antarctica. Doing an number on the alpine glaciers as well. Of course, Mr. Westwall will be the first to tell you that all the Geologists at the USGS are lying to us. As well as all the geologists at the AGU and GSA.

And he will be the first to tell you that even though CO2 is a GHG, increasing it in the atmosphere by over 40% has no effect at all. And he will also tell you is a Phd Geologist. LOL

 

[IsaacNewton]

Ah yes, them thar computers are melting the polar ice cap, as well as that of Greenland and Antarctica. Doing an number on the alpine glaciers as well. Of course, Mr. Westwall will be the first to tell you that all the Geologists at the USGS are lying to us. As well as all the geologists at the AGU and GSA.

And he will be the first to tell you that even though CO2 is a GHG, increasing it in the atmosphere by over 40% has no effect at all. And he will also tell you is a Phd Geologist. LOL

They'll also try to tell you that absorption of CO2 by the ocean, which is converted into carbonic acid which interferes with shellfish forming a Calcium Carbonate shell, isn't a problem.

These people that deny Global Warming are to be ignored. The rest of the population needs the facts and that should be the focus. The Exxon huggers are non-entities who use lies as interchangeable with fact. They make no distinction.

 

[westwall]

Ah yes, them thar computers are melting the polar ice cap, as well as that of Greenland and Antarctica. Doing an number on the alpine glaciers as well. Of course, Mr. Westwall will be the first to tell you that all the Geologists at the USGS are lying to us. As well as all the geologists at the AGU and GSA.

And he will be the first to tell you that even though CO2 is a GHG, increasing it in the atmosphere by over 40% has no effect at all. And he will also tell you is a Phd Geologist. LOL

Poor old olfraud, confused as always I see. Where did I ever say the computer models were melting the ice caps? Hmmm? No, it was the computer models that claimed the Arctic ice would all be gone by now. Remember that? Here, let me refresh your memory...

Why lookey here this was waaaaay back in 2007. Oh, crap that wasn't all that long ago. Oh well, no worries, you clowns will no doubt gin up another prediction that will then fail and you will rely on the ignorance and the stupidity of your fellow travellers and claim that your prediction was 100% accurate!

Here's your blast from the past.... Enjoy!


Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

 

[westwall]

Ah yes, them thar computers are melting the polar ice cap, as well as that of Greenland and Antarctica. Doing an number on the alpine glaciers as well. Of course, Mr. Westwall will be the first to tell you that all the Geologists at the USGS are lying to us. As well as all the geologists at the AGU and GSA.

And he will be the first to tell you that even though CO2 is a GHG, increasing it in the atmosphere by over 40% has no effect at all. And he will also tell you is a Phd Geologist. LOL

They'll also try to tell you that absorption of CO2 by the ocean, which is converted into carbonic acid which interferes with shellfish forming a Calcium Carbonate shell, isn't a problem.

These people that deny Global Warming are to be ignored. The rest of the population needs the facts and that should be the focus. The Exxon huggers are non-entities who use lies as interchangeable with fact. They make no distinction.

And yet again you ignorant silly people ignore the loads of evidence where actual real biologists did experiments with real hard shell critters and placed them in water with THOUSANDS of times more acid than could ever be experienced in the real world and lo and behold the little bastards grew thicker shells! How dare they adapt! Below are three papers that deal with how some do better while others do worse under a acidic realm. The only way they were able to get the critters to really have problems was to elevate levels of acid far beyond what could exist in the real world and increase the temperature to such a high level that their internal metabolic rate was affected.

Real scientists doing real empirical work. NOT COMPUTER MODELS!


"We show that both acidification and warming cause a parabolic response in the calcification rate within this coral species. Moderate increases in pCO2 and warming, relative to near-present-day values, enhanced coral calcification, with calcification rates declining under the highest pCO2 and thermal conditions."



"However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all."

Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1797/20141856

"While research has shown that ocean acidification threatens many invertebrate marine species, such as clams and corals, by hindering their ability to grow shells and exoskeletons, a new study suggests that some species may actually benefit from increased acidity."

Yale Environment 360: Ocean Acidification Benefits Some Marine Organisms, Study Says

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, some species benefit. And the majority go extinct. Such a nice prospect you present there, Mr. Westwall. Such a pleasant thought. If a small percentage of life survives, why all is well. Such an intelligent attitude.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why yes, some species benefit. And the majority go extinct. Such a nice prospect you present there, Mr. Westwall. Such a pleasant thought. If a small percentage of life survives, why all is well. Such an intelligent attitude.

During the Permian/Triassic extinction event 96% of species in the ocean went extinct. And yes the 4% were quite content.

 

[westwall]

Why yes, some species benefit. And the majority go extinct. Such a nice prospect you present there, Mr. Westwall. Such a pleasant thought. If a small percentage of life survives, why all is well. Such an intelligent attitude.

During the Permian/Triassic extinction event 96% of species in the ocean went extinct. And yes the 4% were quite content.

And what was the cause of that extinction event? No one knows but warmth is the LEAST likely of the postulated reasons. Cold due to continuous eruptions and the concurrent sulfer dioxide which lowered global temps is the most likely.

 

[jc456]

Even as the news is that global temperatures have not risen in 20 years and the arctic ice is bigger than ever.

Your denier cult myths are insanely wrong...just deliberately fraudulent lies really....

Temperatures have continued to rise over the last two decades at the same rate or faster than they did in the 1990s. 14 of the 15 hottest years on record happened in this century. 2015 is set to surpass 2014 as the new hottest year on record, beating the previous record holders, 2010 and 2005. That means three of the hottest years on record since at least 1880 will have happened in the last five years.

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming
NOAA
June 4, 2015


(Credit: NOAA)

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."


Arctic ice, in spite of the deranged denier cult myths that have you so bamboozled, continues to shrink in both extent and volume.

Arctic sea ice reaches fourth lowest minimum
National Snow and Ice Data Center
September 15, 2015
On September 11, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2015.The minimum ice extent was the fourth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. The nin e lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last nine years. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is average, a substantial contrast with recent years when Antarctic winter extents reached record high levels.

Winter is coming to the Arctic
NSIDC
November 4, 2015
While Arctic sea ice extent is increasing, total ice extent remains below average, tracking almost two standard deviations below the long-term average. Air temperatures at the 925 millibar level were 4 to 5 degrees Celsius (7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the central Arctic, extending towards Fram Strait. Coastal regions were generally 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average.

Moderation Edit -- Please do not use bright red in posts. It's reserved by the rules..

nice repost from the other thread. Same issue exists for you here, since you don't believe the AR5 report, the whole report is invalid, which then means you have nothing to support your theory. See, you still haven't presented factual data, every item you posted is a model and not raw data. Just have them give their raw data to congress as they requested and let's get the game on. Or, are you afraid of congress getting that raw data because they will find the posted charts are all fraud? hmmmmm. interesting dilemma.

 

[jc456]

Charts I posted showing higher resolution CO2 studies? I gave you the link.. What's wrong with them? Besides blowing away the hackery of claiming CO2 were never even close to today in recent history. Can you read a GRAPH? If not --- stop posting them...

Its you against 10,000 PH.D's.

You lose.

I like those odds.. Even if they are only in your head. When you hear these 10,000 PhDs speaking --- do they tell you what the temperature anomaly will be in 2065 to within a degree? Certainly they don't all agree.

Go read some Bray and von Storch surveys of their opinions..

Them -- 10,000 PH.D's.
You -- 1.

You lose. No debate.

This is called moronic. Just so you know. This is also called an "Appeal to Authority" which is a fundamental logic fail, so no...it is you who lost.

So for you there is no authority, except you, who gets to declare yourself smarter than 10,000 PH.D's.

Ok Newman, go with that.

he said he would debate those 10,000 and he'd win, that was your challenge. Then he asked if you listened to those 10,000. so it is you fixated on the 10,000 number without understanding exactly what they represent, because you haven't heard the 10,000 before. EVA!! you'd be consumed for years to do that you fool. So, you believe based on your own opinion that you have something, when in reality, you have zip nada, nothing and therefore you lose.

 

[jc456]

This is called moronic. Just so you know. This is also called an "Appeal to Authority" which is a fundamental logic fail, so no...it is you who lost.

So for you there is no authority, except you, who gets to declare yourself smarter than 10,000 PH.D's.

Ok Newman, go with that.

No, I follow the scientific method which trumps appeals to authority any day of the week. Way to go silly person you're an insult to the memory of Sir Isaac Newton. He was a thinker. You are a parrot.

So citing the entire body of PH.D's in science is 'appeal to authority'. And in your mind there is no authority. So wouldn't citing 10,000 heart surgeons that use the same technique as an authority be an 'appeal to authority'?

A fallacy is a mistaken belief, one based on unsound argument. And your opinion is it is an unsound argument to cite the entire scientific body of the human race.

Good luck with that.

Yes, it is. Here is the breakdown checklist for appeals to authority. If even one of these points is checked the appeal to authority fails. Look at point number 6. Are the experts biased? Well well, they ALL receive money for their continued support of the fraud (for that is what it is) so they fail that point immediately.

See how that works?

1. 
   
   
   • Has the authority been identified?
   • Is their area of expertise legitimate?
   • Does the authority have sufficient expertise in the subject at hand?
   • Is the claim made by the authority within their area(s) of expertise?
   • Is there sufficient agreement among the other experts in the subject?
   • Is the authority significantly biased?

Appeal To Authority Breakdown

No, what I see is another of Mr. Westwall's lies.

So, if you work for a government, a university, or a scientific organization like Woods Hole, you are biased. But if you work for Exxon, or any other energy corporation, you will not be biased. Sorry fellow, most scientists have more ethics than that.

so again, you have avoided answering this in other threads, but since you repost this shit all the time, here goes....
so, just post up one link of the scientists you state claim warming is man made and not funded by government/ UN money and still make the claim you think?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Or just ignore those who don't want to believe reality. Much easier, they can go spam another thread and we can talk about facts.

Tada.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why lookey here this was waaaaay back in 2007. Oh, crap that wasn't all that long ago. Oh well, no worries, you clowns will no doubt gin up another prediction that will then fail and you will rely on the ignorance and the stupidity of your fellow travellers and claim that your prediction was 100% accurate!

Here's your blast from the past.... Enjoy!

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

LOLOLOL....from the article you cited....

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

***
A study by a team of Arctic scientists led by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California, said there was a good possibility of a largely ice-free-in-summertime Arctic happening by 2016 plus or minus three years. Worst case scenario was that it might be ice free by the end of the summer melt season in 2013. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

A paper by principal investigator Professor Maslowski in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences sets out some of the findings of the research project:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."

All of the rest of the silly propaganda whipped up by the fossil fuel industry shills, claiming that 'all of the scientists predicted an ice free Arctic by 2013 and it didn't (exactly) happen then, so all of climate science must be wrong' was just spun-up malarky, intended to deceive the ignorant and foolish. Most teams studying the Arctic have predicted summer ice free conditions by maybe 2030 at the earliest. There is increasing evidence though that Professor Maslowski's teams' analysis may turn out to be more accurate. According to the NSIDC, air temperatures are 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit above average over the central Arctic right now.

 

[westwall]

Why lookey here this was waaaaay back in 2007. Oh, crap that wasn't all that long ago. Oh well, no worries, you clowns will no doubt gin up another prediction that will then fail and you will rely on the ignorance and the stupidity of your fellow travellers and claim that your prediction was 100% accurate!

Here's your blast from the past.... Enjoy!

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

LOLOLOL....from the article you cited....

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

***
A study by a team of Arctic scientists led by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California, said there was a good possibility of a largely ice-free-in-summertime Arctic happening by 2016 plus or minus three years. Worst case scenario was that it might be ice free by the end of the summer melt season in 2013. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

A paper by principal investigator Professor Maslowski in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences sets out some of the findings of the research project:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."

All of the rest of the silly propaganda whipped up by the fossil fuel industry shills, claiming that 'all of the scientists predicted an ice free Arctic by 2013 and it didn't (exactly) happen then, so all of climate science must be wrong' was just spun-up malarky, intended to deceive the ignorant and foolish. Most teams studying the Arctic have predicted summer ice free conditions by maybe 2030 at the earliest. There is increasing evidence though that Professor Maslowski's teams' analysis may turn out to be more accurate. According to the NSIDC, air temperatures are 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit above average over the central Arctic right now.

Laugh all you want to silly boy. Their models said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. It is now 2015 and look at that would ya! Still have ice there. In fact it is going to be a banner year for ice. So much for your so called experts. WRONG AGAIN!

 

[mamooth]

That's just graph abuse Mammy.. You ignored all those colorful squigglies. They are more important than that 'heavily filtered black line..

Someone needs a statistics lesson, it would appear.

THOSE are the peaks and valleys of the proxies. MANY OF WHICH --- easily exceed our little temperature blip.. And if you rolled that heavy filter out to 2004 -- OUR temperature transition would steam-rolled into insignificance..

And just as many are much colder. And you ignore that.

All those warm periods Westwall names have both cold and warm proxy curves. You blindly assume the warmer one is right and the cold one must be wrong. Cherrypicking failure.

Learn to grab what you can from a graph and not be lulled into stupid conclusions..

Good advice. Being your conclusions are stupid, I reject them.

 

[westwall]

That's just graph abuse Mammy.. You ignored all those colorful squigglies. They are more important than that 'heavily filtered black line..

Someone needs a statistics lesson, it would appear.

THOSE are the peaks and valleys of the proxies. MANY OF WHICH --- easily exceed our little temperature blip.. And if you rolled that heavy filter out to 2004 -- OUR temperature transition would steam-rolled into insignificance..

And just as many are much colder. And you ignore that.

All those warm periods Westwall names have both cold and warm proxy curves. You blindly assume the warmer one is right and the cold one must be wrong. Cherrypicking failure.

Learn to grab what you can from a graph and not be lulled into stupid conclusions..

Good advice. Being your conclusions are stupid, I reject them.

Nope. I'm not even looking at your cute little proxies. I am relying on verifiable historical facts to show that it was warmer in those times. The tax man is a very efficient record keeper and they track who is growing what, and most importantly where they are growing it the best.

As I said, we rely on fact and you rely on computer derived fiction.

 

[mamooth]

Nope. I'm not even looking at your cute little proxies.

Of course you're not. It debunks your cult pseudoscience, so you're going to run screaming from it.

I am relying on verifiable historical facts to show that it was warmer in those times. The tax man is a very efficient record keeper and they track who is growing what, and most importantly where they are growing it the best.

If a group deliberately discards good data in favor of fuzzy crap data, you know you're looking at some grade-A pseudoscience. Here, you're discarding actual temperature proxies in favor of some kook blogger's crazy interpretation of cherrypicked ancient tax records.

As I said, we rely on fact

You keep screaming that you have the facts, but you never present any actual facts. The rational people have concluded that you're just making stuff up. As evidence, you just fabricated a fraudulent claim that all the models predicted the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

and you rely on computer derived fiction.

That's one of your favorite big lies. As I've pointed out to you many times, global warming science is rock solid even without a single model. The directly observable data proves it. If you disagree, give us your theory that explains the currently observed stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation and the decrease in OLR in the GHG bands. You know, those directly observed things that are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, some species benefit. And the majority go extinct. Such a nice prospect you present there, Mr. Westwall. Such a pleasant thought. If a small percentage of life survives, why all is well. Such an intelligent attitude.

During the Permian/Triassic extinction event 96% of species in the ocean went extinct. And yes the 4% were quite content.

And what was the cause of that extinction event? No one knows but warmth is the LEAST likely of the postulated reasons. Cold due to continuous eruptions and the concurrent sulfer dioxide which lowered global temps is the most likely.

Deev Jahi Model of the Permian–Triassic boundary mass extinction: a case for gas hydrates as the main cause of biological crisis on Earth

• E Heydari, a, ,
• J Hassanzadehb,

Abstract
The smoking gun revealing the secrets of the end-Permian mass mortality is a unique 1-2-m-thick layer consisting of 5–20-cm-long crystals of calcite that occurs precisely at the Permian–Triassic boundary (PTB) in Iran, Armenia, Turkey, and China. This layer is interpreted as synsedimentary, abiotic, seafloor cement indicative of precipitation from a highly carbonate supersaturated seawater. Its δ13C composition (δ13C=0‰ PDB) is 4‰ to 5‰ PDB lower than the typical Upper Permian values (4‰ to 5‰ PDB), suggesting the involvement of massive amounts of gas hydrate CH4 (δ13C=−60‰ PDB). The temporal coincidence of the cement layer with the PTB suggests that the process that promoted seafloor cementation was also responsible for the biological crisis. A cementation model is developed based on accumulation–dissociation cycle of gas hydrates which also explains the mass extinction at the PTB.

The Upper Permian accumulation period of gas hydrates ended abruptly adjacent to the PTB and the dissociation event began releasing 3.2 to 4.7×1018 g CH4 into the ocean. Oxidation of CH4 in the water column created a seawater that was charged with CO2 (an oceanic acid bath) and had lower than normal O2 content (but not anoxic). This oceanic acid bath first dissolved suspended fine-grained carbonate particles and small calcareous organisms, followed by extensive dissolution of platform carbonates raising Ca2+ and HCO3− concentrations of seawater. When the release of CH4 declined, the acid-bath ocean became a soda ocean precipitating massive amount of seafloor cements observed globally at the PTB.

The study suggests that prior to cement precipitation, the PTB ocean was charged with CO2, warm, had low oxygen, high Ca2+, and high HCO3− concentrations. These conditions collectively created stressful conditions causing the marine mass mortality. The leakage of CH4 to the atmosphere produced a super-hot climate resulting in the biological devastation on land. The proposed kill mechanism is developed on the basis of the physical clue—the cement layer—left behind by the killing process—the change in ocean chemistry.

The accumulation–dissociation cycles of gas hydrates also explain the δ13C pattern of marine carbonates and the periodicity of mass extinction events during the Phanerozoic. Accumulation periods were long (5 to 20 My) providing favorable conditions for ecosystem development (Pardeess phase). The dissociation events were short and catastrophic (10 to 500 Ky) causing low oxygenation, super-hot climate, and biological devastation (Doozakh phase). It appears that most mass extinctions of the Phanerozoic have been related to the internal working of the Earth system. During the Phanerozoic, methane has played the role of the Deev Jahi—a female demon in Persian mythology—whose task is to attack the Earth every so often to kill life on land and in sea.

Well now, looks like there are other opinions on this.

 

[Old Rocks]

How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event

• Michael J. Benton ,
• Richard J. Twitchett

Abstract
The biggest mass extinction of the past 600 million years (My), the end-Permian event (251 My ago), witnessed the loss of as much as 95% of all species on Earth. Key questions for biologists concern what combination of environmental changes could possibly have had such a devastating effect, the scale and pattern of species loss, and the nature of the recovery. New studies on dating the event, contemporary volcanic activity, and the anatomy of the environmental crisis have changed our perspectives dramatically in the past five years. Evidence on causation is equivocal, with support for either an asteroid impact or mass volcanism, but the latter seems most probable. The extinction model involves global warming by 6°C and huge input of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates, leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop, the ‘runaway greenhouse’.

Seems that some real scientists disagree with your assesment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't have facts, you have tired reposted ad nauseum nothing.

If you check the link in the OP it is what is important. You and the rest of the denier cult simply do this same thing on every single thread about Global Warming.

Yes we know. You don't like reality. Fair enough.

Wrong. We HAVE been posting facts. Facts that you refuse to acknowledge which is simply stupid. Do you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion?

You repeat the same thing over and over and over, which has been refuted by real scientists everywhere. I'm not interested in YOU saying you know more than the PH.D's, the hard evidence from PH.D's outweighs anything in your head by light year. There is a Mt. Everest of facts and evidence against you.

You DON"T post facts, you post what you hear are facts that have been lawyered to fit your pre-determined desired outcome.

Type them into a text document so you can sit there and reread them over and over and feel good. No problem.

Yes, tell us what "real scientists everywhere" think. Better yet, send a letter to THIS guy and tell HIM.

Freeman Dyson and global warming

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't have facts, you have tired reposted ad nauseum nothing.

If you check the link in the OP it is what is important. You and the rest of the denier cult simply do this same thing on every single thread about Global Warming.

Yes we know. You don't like reality. Fair enough.

Wrong. We HAVE been posting facts. Facts that you refuse to acknowledge which is simply stupid. Do you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion?

You repeat the same thing over and over and over, which has been refuted by real scientists everywhere. I'm not interested in YOU saying you know more than the PH.D's, the hard evidence from PH.D's outweighs anything in your head by light year. There is a Mt. Everest of facts and evidence against you.

You DON"T post facts, you post what you hear are facts that have been lawyered to fit your pre-determined desired outcome.

Type them into a text document so you can sit there and reread them over and over and feel good. No problem.

Yes, we do post real facts. Your "real scientists" tell you that the world is about to end. I have shown you that there have been MANY times when the Earth was warmer and not one single catastrophe that they scream is about to happen ever has. That is a fact. Feel free to post up a fact that supports your side and I will be happy to post up one that refutes it.

That's how science works and I too have a PhD in geology so I fully understand how the scientific method works. Clearly you don't.

What exactly about 10,000 PH.D's is so hard to understand. You lose, big time, no contest, no debate, the debate ended 15 years ago for the global scientific community. There is no debate any more. There are PH.D's in the Flat Earth Society, there is no debate anymore about that either. Their credentials are meaningless to any discussion because they cannot accept reality.

Reality isn't an abstract concept that everyone just gets to put out there on their own terms. You don't believe in gravity? I'm not interested, that debate was also settled by the scientific community long ago. No debate. Any opposing opinions are superfluous and to be ignored. Don't believe in germs because you can't see them? No debate, sorry. You can rail on as long as you want, that was also settled in the scientific community long ago.

Global Warming is real and accelerating, that was settled by the scientific community long ago. There is no debate.

Try the religion forum as denial seems to have become a religion these days.

"I have can claim to have a PhD on an Internet message board, so I WIN!!!!"

Epic fail. You lose. **** off.