Climate continues to change.

[RocketLauncher]

What's kind of scary is you really seem to be buying your own von BS.

I'm always open to learning, but you have yet to prove you have anything to teach.

As does fro-doh.

He's in a stupid cycle right now.
Good news...is it will only last another 50 to 60 years.

I read back a few pages and it seems that neither one of you has made substantive claims to support your argument.
I'm always open to learning. It seems the onus is always on the educated to prove climate change. So, I'm more than willing to listen to you prove climate change isn't occurring. Please cite only educational papers or scientific reports to support your claims. (Fyi, Fox and CNN are neither educational or scientific).
Oh and bonus points if you can do it all by your lonesome. Srsly, I'm open minded, convince me.

 

[Klinkster]

You can cite all the papers you like.
None, and I mean NONE, has any numbers to prove it is man-made.
There is consensus.
There is finite element models.
There are temp docs that have been made from bogus weather stations, and adjusted by the writers. Admittedly.

There are a whole lot of wrong predictions.
No one can correlate content of CO2, to temp rise in degrees.

So....the fact remains....there is no proof. There is only hypothesis, and theory.

You think we should destroy our way of living, and economy on hypothesis & theory.....sorry....I'm not in on that.

Nothing for me to cite. I'm not making the claim. Others are.

Convince me.

I read back a few pages and it seems that neither one of you has made substantive claims to support your argument.
I'm always open to learning. It seems the onus is always on the educated to prove climate change. So, I'm more than willing to listen to you prove climate change isn't occurring. Please cite only educational papers or scientific reports to support your claims. (Fyi, Fox and CNN are neither educational or scientific).
Oh and bonus points if you can do it all by your lonesome. Srsly, I'm open minded, convince me.

 

[Luk]

He hasn't been the same since his sphincter put him in a choke hold.

Lolwut

 

[Klinkster]

Lolwut

Do you need an explanation?

 

[Hal9000_]

"The Earth has Natural Cycles"...


How do we know this? Maybe from ice core samples, tree rings, etc?
You know, physical evidence.


"You...and no one.. can prove it to my own personal satisfaction, therefore it isn't true!"

How long does it take "nature" to sequester carbon in oil, shale, and other deposits underground?

We pump and dig it out and burn it much faster, that much is obvious.

 

[Luk]

Do you need an explanation?

As to why vettebirther always talks about men's assholes? Nope, not in the least.

 

[Klinkster]

As to why vettebirther always talks about men's assholes? Nope, not in the least.

Hey....you asked the question.....

 

[Klinkster]

"You...and no one.. can prove it to my own personal satisfaction, therefore it isn't true!"

Didn't say it wasn't true.
Said you can't prove it.
There is a difference.

 

[RocketLauncher]

You can cite all the papers you like.
None, and I mean NONE, has any numbers to prove it is man-made.
There is consensus.
There is finite element models.
There are temp docs that have been made from bogus weather stations, and adjusted by the writers. Admittedly.

There are a whole lot of wrong predictions.
No one can correlate content of CO2, to temp rise in degrees.

So....the fact remains....there is no proof. There is only hypothesis, and theory.

You think we should destroy our way of living, and economy on hypothesis & theory.....sorry....I'm not in on that.

Nothing for me to cite. I'm not making the claim. Others are.

Convince me.

Wow. Smmfh.

 

[thør]

Wow. Smmfh.

Yuppper.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now We Go To School!

<snip>
No one can correlate content of CO2, to temp rise in degrees.

When Climate Denialist Shitbags Whine "But...but...How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?"

 

[Klinkster]

Not going to read any link from you...who calls anyone who disagrees with him, a shitbag.

Fuck you, and everyone who looks like you. You are an ass. You are the shitbag.

I suggest you study, "How To Influence Your Enemy".

When Climate Denialist Shitbags Whine "But...but...How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?"

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You can cite all the papers you like.
None, and I mean NONE, has any numbers to prove it is man-made.
There is consensus.
There is finite element models.
There are temp docs that have been made from bogus weather stations, and adjusted by the writers. Admittedly.

There are a whole lot of wrong predictions.
No one can correlate content of CO2, to temp rise in degrees.

So....the fact remains....there is no proof. There is only hypothesis, and theory.

You think we should destroy our way of living, and economy on hypothesis & theory.....sorry....I'm not in on that.

Nothing for me to cite. I'm not making the claim. Others are.

Convince me.

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_globaltemps_agency_comparison_2018.gif

 

[gunthernehmen]

I read back a few pages and it seems that neither one of you has made substantive claims to support your argument.
I'm always open to learning. It seems the onus is always on the educated to prove climate change. So, I'm more than willing to listen to you prove climate change isn't occurring. Please cite only educational papers or scientific reports to support your claims. (Fyi, Fox and CNN are neither educational or scientific).
Oh and bonus points if you can do it all by your lonesome. Srsly, I'm open minded, convince me.

You're a joke.

You're the one promoting the idea of man centric climate change. It's up to you (your side) to prove your case. Not to me to disprove it. I'm seriously wondering if you actually DO have any kind of education.

 

[von_Bismarck]

You're a joke.

You're the one promoting the idea of man centric climate change. It's up to you (your side) to prove your case. Not to me to disprove it. I'm seriously wondering if you actually DO have any kind of education.

LMFAO. You're making up for the fact that coach dweeb has gone AWOL after the banning.

 

[Klinkster]

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_globaltemps_agency_comparison_2018.gif

I see no correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and temperature.
You cannot say....'X' amount of CO2, means 'Y' amount of temperature increase.
That's cause no one knows....since all anyone has, is theory.

How hard is that?

Seems pretty hard, since no one has done it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I see no correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and temperature.
You cannot say....'X' amount of CO2, means 'Y' amount of temperature increase.
That's cause no one knows....since all anyone has, is theory.

How hard is that?

Seems pretty hard, since no one has done it.

Theory is all science needs.

 

[Klinkster]

Theory is all science needs.

Nope, but it appears that theory is all you need.

Theory, is more often wrong, than right.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I see no correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and temperature.
You cannot say....'X' amount of CO2, means 'Y' amount of temperature increase.
That's cause no one knows....since all anyone has, is theory.

How hard is that?

Seems pretty hard, since no one has done it.

Seriously? This is basic stuff. Look up climate sensitivity, for example.

And then GTFO, dummy.

 

[Klinkster]

Seriously? This is basic stuff. Look up climate sensitivity, for example.

And then GTFO, dummy.

Nope.
It does not exist.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Nope, but it appears that theory is all you need.

Theory, is more often wrong, than right.

No, it isn't. You don't understand what a theory is. A theory has been tested and verified.

 

[Klinkster]

No, it isn't. You don't understand what a theory is. A theory has been tested and verified.

And the one you are touting.....has not.

 

[Klinkster]

No, it isn't. You don't understand what a theory is. A theory has been tested and verified.

You don't understand what proving a theory is.

 

[Hal9000_]

Hypothesis does not equal theory.

Anthropogenic climate change is a verifiable theory.

Of course it is impossible to give 100% probability of the future.

We have to theorize based on historical evidence and knowledge of climate factors, however limited.

Eventually we reach a conclusion which , while maybe imperfect, reached a confidence interval that is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Klinkster]

No, it isn't. You don't understand what a theory is. A theory has been tested and verified.

And if it was "tested and verified", you would be able to correlate PPM of CO2, with deltaT.

You can't.