How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Flash]

Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.

How long have homo sapiens been around, 0.0015% odd of that time?

so you want all us to die.....right?

Just think how many of these stupid Yankee Moon Bats upnorth that elect idiot Democrats that want to take away their heating fuel would die in the first winter without fossil fuels.

 

[Oddball]

I'm an expert in language and semantics, and I know parsing, qualifying, and obfuscating bullshit artists when I hear them.

Yes, you've said. But this is about science of which you obviously know sweet fa. Amusingly enough I've had the same arguments from accountants, 'they know a scam when they see one'. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.

I know enough about science to recognize that none of the Goebbels warming hokum is:

• Physically repeatable
• Quantifiable
• Falsifiable
• Has a static control
• Has a baseline "optimal" temperature

After that, all the double-talking, parsing, and qualifying language surrounding it reveals it for the pure pseudo-scientific hoax that it is.

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, for as long as any so called "climate changes" are within the range of natural occurrences in the past, I see no reason to draw any conclusions along those lines.

How long in the past? Does it include when mankind was not around? After all, being formed of molten rock is a natural occurrence, during which the Earth was regulating itself.

A reasonable timeframe would vary. . . But it wouldn't vary in a way that is intentionally dimissive of any time periods or occurances that can arguably be perceived as an inconvenience or spoiler.

 

[Chuz Life]

The earth will regulate itself with or without us.

Gods. Then I take it you don't chuz life.

I'll make a deal with you.

You make more of an effort to fight for the rights and lives of the millions of children being intentionally denied and slaughtered here and now in the present time. . . And I'll make more of an effort to try and get myself more worked over your reasons to have more worries and concerns about the children of 5 to 10 generations from now; who haven't even been conceived.

Deal?

 

[Crick]

What prevents you from being concerned about both?

 

[Chuz Life]

What prevents you from being concerned about both?

What prevents YOU?

 

[cnm]

A reasonable timeframe would vary. . . But it wouldn't vary in a way that is intentionally dimissive of any time periods or occurances that can arguably be perceived as an inconvenience or spoiler.

What a load. Chuz bullshit.

 

[cnm]

I know enough about science to recognize that none of the Goebbels warming hokum is:

• Physically repeatable
• Quantifiable
• Falsifiable
• Has a static control
• Has a baseline "optimal" temperature

After that, all the double-talking, parsing, and qualifying language surrounding it reveals it for the pure pseudo-scientific hoax that it is.

So you didn't read the links and you've dismissed their contents out of hand while patting yourself on the back for not actually engaging with the evidence. Dunning-Kruger don't know what they're missing.

 

[cnm]

Deal?

Nah, one cannot make deals with invincible ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

So lets see the paper...just a link will be sufficient... We both know that you won't be providing any such link because no such paper exists...

www.ipcc.ch

TROLL

That isn't a link to a paper...that is a link to a steaming pile of excrement...now if you care to name a particular paper within that pile which contains the data that you claim exists...by all means..name it...

We both know that isn't going to happen though...don't we...once more, you will get your panties in a twist and call me some name because once again, I have shown you to be a bloviating buffoon...

 

[Chuz Life]

Deal?

Nah, one cannot make deals with invincible ignorance.

You personify that point very well.

 

[Oddball]

I know enough about science to recognize that none of the Goebbels warming hokum is:

• Physically repeatable
• Quantifiable
• Falsifiable
• Has a static control
• Has a baseline "optimal" temperature

After that, all the double-talking, parsing, and qualifying language surrounding it reveals it for the pure pseudo-scientific hoax that it is.

So you didn't read the links and you've dismissed their contents out of hand while patting yourself on the back for not actually engaging with the evidence. Dunning-Kruger don't know what they're missing.

I've told you the evidence I've gone by....People using the semantics of double-dealers and liars, are going to end up being double-dealers and liars....It's how language works.

You can take your left-handed Dunning-Kruger insult and shove it up your hoaxing ass.

 

[Chuz Life]

A reasonable timeframe would vary. . . But it wouldn't vary in a way that is intentionally dimissive of any time periods or occurances that can arguably be perceived as an inconvenience or spoiler.

What a load. Chuz bullshit.

So (to you) it is "bullshit" to factor in ALL of the data, including data that might prove against your theory?

That should tell everyone all they need to know about your conclusions, right there.

 

[Crick]

What prevents you from being concerned about both?

What prevents YOU?

I'm very concerned about AGW. I'm not concerned about abortions because I do not consider a first trimester fetus to be a human being. I believe all women have the right to abortion on demand in the first trimester. Believe it or not, so does the US Supreme Court. That is the law in this nation.

But you haven't answered my question. Why do you act as if it is impossible to concerned both about abortion and global warming? I'm quite certain lots of other people are. What limits you in that regard?

 

[Chuz Life]

What prevents you from being concerned about both?

What prevents YOU?

I'm very concerned about AGW. I'm not concerned about abortions because I do not consider a first trimester fetus to be a human being. I believe all women have the right to abortion on demand in the first trimester. Believe it or not, so does the US Supreme Court. That is the law in this nation.

But you haven't answered my question. Why do you act as if it is impossible to concerned both about abortion and global warming? I'm quite certain lots of other people are. What limits you in that regard?

1. You are wrong when you claim that human being is not a human being when thst human being is in the fetal stage of their own life, growth and development.

2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.

 

[cnm]

I've told you the evidence I've gone by

Yes. Everything but the science. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well. And that's not an insult, merely a verifiable observation.

 

[cnm]

So (to you) it is "bullshit" to factor in ALL of the data

No. The post of yours I referenced is complete bullshit. It gives no information and is in no way useful. It's bullshit.

 

[cnm]

2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.

Just like the dinosaurs.

 

[Oddball]

I've told you the evidence I've gone by

Yes. Everything but the science. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well. And that's not an insult, merely a verifiable observation.

Verifiable by whom, a cargo cultist?

 

[Chuz Life]

2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.

Just like the dinosaurs.

Yeah.

Because dinosaurs were much more intelligent and able to perceive and control their own destiny than we humans are.

Right?

Funny how tardz don't even know when to shut the fuck up, sometimes.