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.