nothing reply anything you want

ooah

Roo has it right. You don't wanna go there with your specious claims....


Originally Posted by jimxbeam

Whew. Nicely done.

I got me a new man crush.

.

believeable

Yup. jimxbeam gets it. Glad you agree.

He tol' me ta tell ya....yer welcome!

.

Roo has it right. You don't wanna go there with your specious claims.



Not true. The overwhelming consensus of scientists supports global warming. And "consensus" is not a weasel word. Science functions by repeated experimental tests of "The Truth." Ideas that stand up to repeated tests are viewed as "The Truth." Not what is published on Breitbart, The National Review, or Fox News. And those tests must continue, as better experiments are done.

You might be interested in knowing that the first paper describing global temperature change based on CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Estimates of global temperature change from his model are pretty accurate.

Also not true. Michael Mann's primary data and the temperature proxies that support those data have been repeated again and again, and have been supported by peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals.


There is something called the Global Carbon Cycle that controls all carbon, including CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth's crust, and in the oceans. The CO2 that human activity puts in the atmosphere is a small fraction of the total, but it is the part that causes the problem.

Now, I am sure that the usual suspects will post pages of rebuttal based on their favorite sources, and most the ECCIE Brain Trust will pile on with their opinions.

But science, although consensus driven, is not democratic. An incorrect claim by a nobody is not given any standing in the universe of peer-reviewed science. That is just the way it is. Originally Posted by jimxbeam

the overwhelming consensus does NOT agree.

the Obama "97% of scientists agree" was a total fabrication. he made it up.


tell me that's a "lie" and see how fast i can prove he made it up.

Roo has it right. You don't wanna go there with your specious claims.



Not true. The overwhelming consensus of scientists supports global warming. And "consensus" is not a weasel word. Science functions by repeated experimental tests of "The Truth." Ideas that stand up to repeated tests are viewed as "The Truth." Not what is published on Breitbart, The National Review, or Fox News. And those tests must continue, as better experiments are done.

You might be interested in knowing that the first paper describing global temperature change based on CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Estimates of global temperature change from his model are pretty accurate.

Also not true. Michael Mann's primary data and the temperature proxies that support those data have been repeated again and again, and have been supported by peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals.


There is something called the Global Carbon Cycle that controls all carbon, including CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth's crust, and in the oceans. The CO2 that human activity puts in the atmosphere is a small fraction of the total, but it is the part that causes the problem.

Now, I am sure that the usual suspects will post pages of rebuttal based on their favorite sources, and most the ECCIE Brain Trust will pile on with their opinions.

But science, although consensus driven, is not democratic. An incorrect claim by a nobody is not given any standing in the universe of peer-reviewed science. That is just the way it is. Originally Posted by jimxbeam

i'm impressed .. sort of. you'll have to try a lot harder for me to be actually impressed.


at least you "seem" to know that eliminating ALL CO2 ... would KILL ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET .. yes??

and yet you see dumbtard "climate crusaders" who would blindly agree to that .. like Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg. bahahaha that's quite a name this cunt has.


she's also a total idiot about climate change.

so why don't you just impress the Hell out of TWK and show me that consensus you speak of?

for every article/study you can find i'll find another that refutes it. bet?

and speaking of cycles .. you know what the solar cycle is yes? that approximately 11 year cycle of solar activity?

has far more to do with planetary warming .. and cooling than anything man is doing.

let me sum this up for ya ...


Solar cycle up .. WARM!
Solar cycle low .. COLD!


see how that works?

You are not worth my time, sir.

You are not worth my time, sir. Originally Posted by jimxbeam

if you say so

nudity does not offend me .. because i graduated SUM CUM LOUDLY from the University of Perversity


bahahahahaha

You are not worth my time, sir. Originally Posted by jimxbeam

wait

what happened to the warnings

of don't start going down the conversation

for fear of being obliterated

by the science?

When you drink the orange kool-aid to excess there's usually no cure for what it does to you.

When you drink the orange kool-aid to excess there's usually no cure for what it does to you.

Nice, a double short of the orange

Nice, a double short of the orange Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

looks as someone took way to many C19 shots

i'm impressed .. sort of. you'll have to try a lot harder for me to be actually impressed. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I will rise to the bait and make a few final comments.

I predicted the response that I have received. My original post is quite complete as a response to the myths that TWK posted, and conveys what the real scientific community believes to be the The Truth about climate change as is presently understood. And the testing continues. Anyone familiar with the authentic scientific literature will know how to access the primary references. There are thousands of them. I am not going to do TWK's homework. He seems to have plenty of time for that. And he has a few choice references of his own.

With respect to the explosion of words in TWK's response, all I can is there is virtually no real science there. There is a lot of pseudo science and a bunch of ad hominem criticism. I won't dignify it by calling a "word salad" as the intelligentsia say. It is more like diarrhea. Sad. And a disgrace.

It is very easy to tell, from what has been written here, how many people on this thread are real scientists. You can count them on the fingers on one hand of a sloppy machinist. Am I a "real" scientist? You tell me. I have published over 150 peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals. Yeah, I know. Big fucking deal. The peer review process is tough. You get roughed up fairly often. It is not infallible, but it requires you to be clear and logical, with conclusions being supported by authentic data.

The physicist Wolfgang Pauli had a famous quotation that applies to TWK's post. He said "That's not right. That's not even wrong!"


Think about it. Forrest Gump also had something to say.

I will never be able to impress you, TWK. I don't care. But you certainly have impressed me.