Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[ding]

The truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Co2 went up.

Atmospheric temps did NOT.

THEORY REJECTED

You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[ding]

"opponents of AGW" are not funded by the Co2 FRAUD, YOU ARE.

Nope. I don't believe in AGW. you are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[EMH]

You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

How is pointing out that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 "making opponents of AGW look bad?"

LOL!!!

Because what you call "opponents of AGW" like you and Toddster are FRAUDS who are FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD.

 

[ding]

How is pointing out that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 "making opponents of AGW look bad?"

LOL!!!

Because what you call "opponents of AGW" like you and Toddster are FRAUDS who are FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD.

Because it's wrong. You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[EMH]

Nope. I don't believe in AGW. you are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

and yet here you are parroting all FUDGED FRAUD as real data....

 

[EMH]

Never once does "Ding" deny he is FUNDED BY THE CO2 FRAUD....

 

[ding]

and yet here you are parroting all FUDGED FRAUD as real data....

Nope. Just the opposite. I'm proving that the warming is natural and expected. You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[EMH]

the warming

does not EXIST

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

 

[ding]

Never once does "Ding" deny he is FUNDED BY THE CO2 FRAUD....

Nope. I don't believe in AGW. I believe the majority of warming is natural and due to the norther hemisphere naturally deglaciating like it's done every interglacial period for the last 3 million years.

You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[ding]

does not EXIST

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

It does exist and it is perfectly natural. You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[Dagosa]

The truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Co2 went up.

Atmospheric temps did NOT.

THEORY REJECTED

Atmospheric temps ? You talking to Tucker again ? You’re so science illiterate you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. There you go again. You are confused between the atmosphere and surface temps aren’t you ?
You obviously know nothing about radiant heat do you ?

 

[Dagosa]

How is pointing out that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 "making opponents of AGW look bad?"

LOL!!!

Because what you call "opponents of AGW" like you and Toddster are FRAUDS who are FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD.

Non reader, the balloons and satellites are indirectly measuring SURFACE TEMPS, not atmospheric temps to quantify the effects of AGW. But keep posting made up shit, while we laugh at you.

 

[Dagosa]

How is pointing out that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 "making opponents of AGW look bad?"

LOL!!!

Because what you call "opponents of AGW" like you and Toddster are FRAUDS who are FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD.

Science illiterate, where in the atmosphere do you claim the temperatures are taken ?

 

[Dagosa]

The truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Co2 went up.

Atmospheric temps did NOT.

THEORY REJECTED

Still waiting. Which layer of the atmosphere are we talking about ?

 

[Dagosa]

as is all claims that ocean currents cause climate change.

Who claims that ?

How is pointing out that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 "making opponents of AGW look bad?"

LOL!!!

Because what you call "opponents of AGW" like you and Toddster are FRAUDS who are FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD.

Where is your reference ?

 

[Dagosa]

The truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Co2 went up.

Atmospheric temps did NOT.

THEORY REJECTED

Source ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Co2 went up.

Atmospheric temps did NOT.

THEORY REJECTED

You didn't need satellites and balloons for that.
Temperatures declined from the 1940s to the 1970s.
CO2 levels were higher in the 1970s than the 1930s, but it was cooler.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

Is he SSDD?

 

[EMH]

It does exist and it is perfectly natural. You are a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

This is why you are paid by the Co2 FRAUD. You are paid by the Co2 FRAUD to pretend to be a "skeptic" but to ACCEPT ALL THEIR FUDGED FRAUD "warming" that does not exist.

 

[EMH]

You didn't need satellites and balloons for that.
Temperatures declined from the 1940s to the 1970s.
CO2 levels were higher in the 1970s than the 1930s, but it was cooler.

Same thing. Paid "faux skeptic" pushing everyone to accept FUDGED FRAUD as "warming."

The Zionist Fascists are never confused on which side they are on, they are always on the FRAUD HARMING AMERICA side.



And neither one of you two sick people can answer basic climate questions....

1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?