The Swedes are going nuclear....they realize the silliness of solar and wind....

[Crick]

To counter people like you.

So were you lying when you said you didn't care or are you lying here?

 

[ReinyDays]

Then why do you post here?

To counter people like you.

Then why are you laughing so much? ...

 

[ding]

Then why are you laughing so much? ...

Am I?

 

[ding]

So were you lying when you said you didn't care or are you lying here?

Neither. You believe catastrophic warming will occur because of CO2 emission. I believe the data overwhelmingly shows natural variability and that's all this is. What's to care about? It will be what it will be.

 

[Crick]

I believe the data overwhelmingly shows natural variability and that's all this is. What's to care about? It will be what it will be.

And it doesn't bother you that so many PhDs, who study this topic for a living would disagree with you completely? Do you think they are stupid or liars?

 

[ding]

And it doesn't bother you that so many PhDs, who study this topic for a living would disagree with you completely? Do you think they are stupid or liars?

Neither. I think they are mistaken. How many times do I need to tell you that?

They rely upon flawed computer models which don't match empirical climate data and ignore what the empirical climate data is telling them. Increased water vapor leads to a net cooling, not a net warming. If that were not true the planet would have never cooled for 50 million years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

 

[Crick]

Neither. I think they are mistaken.

You don't even understand what you're saying. Or you're lying. You think you are smarter than all of them. That is the belief of an insane person. And an idiot.

 

[ding]

You don't even understand what you're saying. Or you're lying. You think you are smarter than all of them. That is the belief of an insane person. And an idiot.

Of course I understand what I am saying. They have made a mistake by falsely correlating a natural climate variation to increased atmospheric CO2 due to increased emissions. Their models incorrectly predict a net warming due to increased water vapor instead of a net cooling from increased water vapor.

 

[Crick]

Of course I understand what I am saying. They have made a mistake by falsely correlating a natural climate variation to increased atmospheric CO2 due to increased emissions. Their models incorrectly predict a net warming due to increased water vapor instead of a net cooling from increased water vapor.

So, over and over and over again you claim to be smarter than thousands of PhDs all actively researching the topic for decades when your experience consists of reading right wing internet blogs and a 9th grade science class.

What caused the "natural climate variation" warming the planet at rates not seen in millions of years over the last century and a half? These things do no happen by themselves. WHAT IS CAUSING IT?

 

[elektra]

Another horrible side effect of the Co2 fraud= the return of nuclear, the most expensive when waste issues are included.

Co2 does nothing.

Go back to burning hydrocarbons. No nuclear waste...

What nuclear waste?

 

[jc456]

And it doesn't bother you that so many PhDs, who study this topic for a living would disagree with you completely? Do you think they are stupid or liars?

well it bothers you that there is dissenting opinion by other PhDs that don't agree with you and your list of whomever. You shit it on their efforts like they don't matter. Let's start there.

 

[jc456]

Neither. I think they are mistaken. How many times do I need to tell you that?

They rely upon flawed computer models which don't match empirical climate data and ignore what the empirical climate data is telling them. Increased water vapor leads to a net cooling, not a net warming. If that were not true the planet would have never cooled for 50 million years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

and they all ignore dissenting opinions by qualified PhDs.

 

[ding]

So, over and over and over again you claim to be smarter than thousands of PhDs all actively researching the topic for decades when your experience consists of reading right wing internet blogs and a 9th grade science class.

What caused the "natural climate variation" warming the planet at rates not seen in millions of years over the last century and a half? These things do no happen by themselves. WHAT IS CAUSING IT?

No. My claim is that they are mistaken. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. No one disputes this and this proves that water vapor is not a net positive feedback.

 

[Crick]

No. My claim is that they are mistaken.

Your claim is that they are mistaken and you are not.

The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. No one disputes this and this proves that water vapor is not a net positive feedback.

No, it doesn't.

 

[ding]

Your claim is that they are mistaken and you are not.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, that's usually how it works when there are different opinions. The difference is I am basing my beliefs on empirical climate data. They are basing their on flawed computer models.

 

[jc456]

Yes, that's usually how it works when there are different opinions. The difference is I am basing my beliefs on empirical climate data. They are basing their on flawed computer models.

from his data source....