Two Theories

[G.T.]

Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat **** mouth and ***** and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.

Sad, really.

 

[G.T.]

There is a graph somewhere that shows a correlation between how depraved a hate/spite filled partisan mind is.......and how many threads they make in assumption they are "sew smawtt" and everyone else has been "duped!"

 

[jc456]

Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat **** mouth and ***** and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.

Sad, really.

And he sinks further in the sand. Yep can't prove it so get ugly. That's expected. But no proof just seems utterly ridiculas to me, since that is what is needed to provide a theory. So if the theory is there, then the evidence to reach said theory is expected. Video please!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat **** mouth and ***** and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.

Sad, really.

Until 2008, I was only peripherally interested in climate "science". I was on another Broad and one of the early AGWCult members was carrying on about a new paper that showed mankind was responsible for Global Warming (that's before it changed to Climate change or Climate Disruption.)

I downloaded and read the paper by Scarfetta and West and what I learned was that it was long on conjecture and very short on any experiments backing up the theory. Form memory I think they said the Sun was only 30% responsible for Global Warming (remember, that's before it changed to Climate change or Climate Disruption). When I looked for the methodology by which they assigned the various percent I came up with "well, it kind of feels right" as their reasoning. That's not exactly what they said but that's the impression I got. No science, no experiment, just a punt

That's when I knew the AGWCult was scamming us.

 

[jc456]

There is a graph somewhere that shows a correlation between how depraved a hate/spite filled partisan mind is.......and how many threads they make in assumption they are "sew smawtt" and everyone else has been "duped!"

Wow, and the sink continues. correlation is not causation. See, you like all your brethern still haven't learned what the definition of cause is. It is not correlation. Video please! Convince me with one of those hundred experiments.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is a graph somewhere that shows a correlation between how depraved a hate/spite filled partisan mind is.......and how many threads they make in assumption they are "sew smawtt" and everyone else has been "duped!"

Look, you got punked by the AGWCult. They know it's fake and they're laughing at how they took you in and duped you. Stop playing along with them

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seriously, GT, your posting Alka-Seltzer tablets!!

 

[G.T.]

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry.

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.

 

[G.T.]

Seriously, GT, your posting Alka-Seltzer tablets!!

This is more an iteration of just how stupid you really are. Wow

 

[jc456]

Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat **** mouth and ***** and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.

Sad, really.

Until 2008, I was only peripherally interested in climate "science". I was on another Broad and one of the early AGWCult members was carrying on about a new paper that showed mankind was responsible for Global Warming (that's before it changed to Climate change or Climate Disruption.)

I downloaded and read the paper by Scarfetta and West and what I learned was that it was long on conjecture and very short on any experiments backing up the theory. Form memory I think they said the Sun was only 30% responsible for Global Warming (remember, that's before it changed to Climate change or Climate Disruption). When I looked for the methodology by which they assigned the various percent I came up with "well, it kind of feels right" as their reasoning. That's not exactly what they said but that's the impression I got. No science, no experiment, just a punt

That's when I knew the AGWCult was scamming us.

For me, it was merely where I lived, that didn't match up to any of what was being advertised. went to the internet and started researching, went to couple of message boards and well all of the searches and discussions and papers have told me one thing, it is just mumbo jumbo.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry.

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.

Yet, you still can't find a single experiment that shows warming from an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[jc456]

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry.

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.

Wow, he went quick in that quicksand didn't he? That took less than an hour.

 

[G.T.]

A random science professor at a random university shows the internet how clear cut and easy it is to measure the effects of co2 concentration on temperature.....

And the response is...

Hahaha alka seltzer!YOU gotta be kidding me! (No youre right....its much more likely he was paid to propel the conspiracy further by letting the kids see for them fuckng selves!! Its genius!)

 

[jc456]

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry.

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.

Yet, you still can't find a single experiment that shows warming from an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

They all use the same talking points and follow the same pattern when put on the spot. It's effin hilarious.

And you offered him a branch and he went down instead. LOL

 

[G.T.]

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry.

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.

Yet, you still can't find a single experiment that shows warming from an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

Are you really this daft? In real life....or just play it on the internet?

The dataset is for any ppm concentration you need to find. Youre problem is....you dont kow what the fuxk youre looking at. Im sorry. For ya.

 

[jc456]

A random science professor at a random university shows the internet how clear cut and easy it is to measure the effects of co2 concentration on temperature.....

And the response is...

Hahaha alka seltzer!YOU gotta be kidding me! (No youre right....its much more likely he was paid to propel the conspiracy further by letting the kids see for them fuckng selves!! Its genius!)

Professor? So you're a professor and you have no video feed of an experiment you boast about. Prove it and show the video. Your students just accept stuff eh? Liberal academics.

 

[G.T.]

Do you ever say anything relevant?

Im not a professor. The experiment i posted is what i was referring to idiot. Wow

 

[jc456]

Do you ever say anything relevant?

Im not a professor. The experiment i posted is what i was referring to idiot. Wow

Well then you did a terrible job of explaining that point. I see you never look in a mirror eh?
Nothing is ever your fault. Ok, so my comments still don't change, wouldn't you think that a professor would video his/ her experiments?

 

[G.T.]

**** you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......





Exactly.

 

[konradv]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

Easily done. If you put 280 ppm CO2 in a spectrophotometer, it will absorb IR radiation. If you put in 400 ppm, it will absorb more. It's simple logic. You're being disingenuous because you've been told this many times, but pretend to have never heard it before.