Climate continues to change.

[Klinkster]

And then....you go off on things that 'may' effect temps....without any correlation, or proof.

Too complex?

The campfires probably added to the cooling effect.

Of course the population was exponentially different.

We now have trillions of people all burning non-neutral carbon sources.

Whatever. We can just put up a synthetic solar shade by injecting particulates in to jet airline exhaust.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...creating-accidental-geoengineering-180957561/

Humans have NO EFFECT!

 

[gunthernehmen]

I just showed you an experiment that verifies CO2 concentration vs. temperature change. (fine..I'll call it "∆T")

It verifies the main paradigm of ACC theory.

You want "proof"? Let a jury decide.

I've never seen such a concerted effort to avoid answering a donor question.

Are you sure you guys are scientists and not politicians?

 

[Klinkster]

You are just an ass Rob.

Nothing pertinent to the topic....again....or more to the point....still.

He's not "dumb". This is intentional, especially now with Que here....it's classic sealioning.

https://i.imgur.com/UjhgVmR.jpg

 

[Klinkster]

Huh.....
And I thought they were just know-it-all assholes....

Oh wait....synonymous with politician.....never mind.

I've never seen such a concerted effort to avoid answering a donor question.

Are you sure you guys are scientists and not politicians?

 

[Que]

The campfires probably added to the cooling effect.

Of course the population was exponentially different.

We now have trillions of people all burning non-neutral carbon sources.

Whatever. We can just put up a synthetic solar shade by injecting particulates in to jet airline exhaust.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...creating-accidental-geoengineering-180957561/

Humans have NO EFFECT!

Tell me more about these non-neutral carbon sources. These lab experiments of what which you speak, did they find that using a different isotope of carbon in the xarbon dioxide magically did not cause global warming? This sounds really interesting.

It sounds like you know a lot about this science stuff.

 

[Hal9000_]

I've never seen such a concerted effort to avoid answering a donor question.

Are you sure you guys are scientists and not politicians?

I've never seen such an effort to keep asking an obviously unanswerable question.

Which equals deflection.



"Prove that ACC exists! Prove it! Prove it!"

lol...comical.

 

[Klinkster]

The fact that no one can answer the question, means you cannot prove the theory.....or don't you get that?

The fact that you think it's deflection....proves that you are guilty of deflection....not me.

Simple question.Can't answer it....say so.
If you can't answer it, then why should I believe that minor changes in the CO2 content in the atmosphere, causes the temperature to rise?

The proof, would be that very correlation I ask about.

Work on it.....

I've never seen such an effort to keep asking an obviously unanswerable question.

Which equals deflection.



"Prove that ACC exists! Prove it! Prove it!"

lol...comical.

 

[Hal9000_]

https://media.giphy.com/media/12Hh36sFllMFc4/giphy.gif


https://media.giphy.com/media/FjdpTNOgCOaNG/giphy.gif

https://media2.giphy.com/media/b5wsJPqD7zZaE/giphy.gif

 

[Que]

Oh, geez. Did not see that coming.

Just when I thought a climate alarmist was going to explain anthropogenic causes as the exclusive cause of warming, he went full Zumi.

Never go full Zumi.

 

[Klinkster]

And....are you still confused on the question?

Would you care to still disassociate your BS with the question? Oh wait....you already did.

Hal.....go back in space....your head seems to be full of space. You belong there.

I will chalk you up as 'incapable' of answering the question, and most likely, to throw some stupid meaningless meme out there, since you can't.

Sad, you are.

https://media.giphy.com/media/12Hh36sFllMFc4/giphy.gif


https://media.giphy.com/media/FjdpTNOgCOaNG/giphy.gif

https://media2.giphy.com/media/b5wsJPqD7zZaE/giphy.gif

 

[Hal9000_]

Better to be an "alarmist" than a lobbyist.

(Paid liar)

 

[Klinkster]

Better to be logical, than an idiot.
Science....is about logic.....it's about skepticism.

The 'climate end of the world' folks.....are about politics.
They skipped the logic.
They skipped the skepticism.
They got their money.....from the lobbyists, to tell you what the politicians want you to hear, and believe.
So they can get more money.
Proof......be damned.

Pick which one you want to be.

Better to be an "alarmist" than a lobbyist.

(Paid liar)

 

[Que]

Better to be an "alarmist" than a lobbyist.

(Paid liar)

That's like arguing the difference between a slut and a whore.

You just straight up claimed that:

1) Carbon dioxide is the one and only reason for the planet's warming cycles.

2) Only man contributes to greenhouse gasses.

3) That there is a difference in the effect of carbon dioxide from what you describe as neutral sources.

4) That no one needs to reconcile the stark varience between lab experiments with limited variables and actual, observed data on rising CO2 without the same degree of correlation with rising temperatures found in the lab experiments.

Just because no one is paying you to spread preposterous lies for the "information dissemination bureau" makes them no less propaganda. It isn't even good propaganda. Ask Phrodeau to let you follow along with him in the hymnal, or maybe Boofy will let you use his cheat-sheet of canned climate alarmism talking points.

 

[Hal9000_]

That's like arguing the difference between a slut and a whore.

You just straight up claimed that:

1) Carbon dioxide is the one and only reason for the planet's warming cycles.

Lie no. 1. I "straight up" said that CO2 is the .only verifiable contributor to ACC.

2) Only man contributes to greenhouse gasses.

Lie no. 2. I never once mentioned the term "greenhouse gasses"

3) That there is a difference in the effect of carbon dioxide from what you describe as neutral sources.

Of course there is a difference. Carbon neutral sources are re-absorbed in the carbon cycle.

4) That no one needs to reconcile the stark varience between lab experiments with limited variables and actual, observed data on rising CO2 without the same degree of correlation with rising temperatures found in the lab experiments.

Just because no one is paying you to spread preposterous lies for the "information dissemination bureau" makes them no less propaganda. It isn't even good propaganda. Ask Phrodeau to let you follow along with him in the hymnal, or maybe Boofy will let you use his cheat-sheet of canned climate alarmism talking points.

Blah fucking blah...

If I am wrong, and Anthro. climate change is "fake news"...so what? We have made a few minor changes to clean up our environment.

If you are wrong...however...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sealioning Intensifies!

That's like arguing the difference between a slut and a whore.

You just straight up claimed that:

1) Carbon dioxide is the one and only reason for the planet's warming cycles.

2) Only man contributes to greenhouse gasses.

3) That there is a difference in the effect of carbon dioxide from what you describe as neutral sources.

4) That no one needs to reconcile the stark varience between lab experiments with limited variables and actual, observed data on rising CO2 without the same degree of correlation with rising temperatures found in the lab experiments.

Just because no one is paying you to spread preposterous lies for the "information dissemination bureau" makes them no less propaganda. It isn't even good propaganda. Ask Phrodeau to let you follow along with him in the hymnal, or maybe Boofy will let you use his cheat-sheet of canned climate alarmism talking points.

Look how effortlessly Queerbait moves those pesky goalpists!

Simply change a few "some" words to "only" and voilà ("wall lah" in Ish-speak if you prefer), you're a winner!

 

[Klinkster]

You still didn’t answer the question.

You still seem to avoid the question.

You still, cannot show proof of the theory you have chosen to support.

Give it a shot....or close your hole.

I prefer not to bag life as I know it, and sell the shithouse....in case your theory is wrong.
Especially, since there is no proof yet.

Want to conserve....take care of the planet? Fine. Do so. We all should.
Want to destroy our economy, and way of life to do so? You are a flaming idiot.

In case YOU are wrong......

How about that?

Lie no. 1. I "straight up" said that CO2 is the .only verifiable contributor to ACC.


Lie no. 2. I never once mentioned the term "greenhouse gasses"



Of course there is a difference. Carbon neutral sources are re-absorbed in the carbon cycle.



Blah fucking blah...

If I am wrong, and Anthro. climate change is "fake news"...so what? We have made a few minor changes to clean up our environment.

If you are wrong...however...

 

[Hal9000_]

Really? Acknowledging ACC exists will "destroy our economy and way of life"?

If we are that dependent on a single source of energy, we are already in serious trouble.

 

[phrodeau]

Better to be logical, than an idiot.
Science....is about logic.....it's about skepticism.

The 'climate end of the world' folks.....are about politics.
They skipped the logic.
They skipped the skepticism.
They got their money.....from the lobbyists, to tell you what the politicians want you to hear, and believe.
So they can get more money.
Proof......be damned.

Pick which one you want to be.

It sounds like you have a scientific theory about climate change. How is it holding up to the evidence? If it’s in good shape, there’s a nice pile of cash just waiting for you to pocket.

 

[Que]

It sounds like you have a scientific theory about climate change. How is it holding up to the evidence? If it’s in good shape, there’s a nice pile of cash just waiting for you to pocket.

That is not how "scientific" pay-for-play works. No one including the federal government pays you to do actual science. What they are willing to do is to pay you if it advances someone's interest..

There's no money in pointing out that the sky is not falling.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That is not how "scientific" pay-for-play works. No one including the federal government pays you to do actual science. What they are willing to do is to pay you if it advances someone's interest..

There's no money in pointing out that the sky is not falling.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/Ho2mVZ5dvsW7S/giphy.gif

 

[phrodeau]

That is not how "scientific" pay-for-play works. No one including the federal government pays you to do actual science. What they are willing to do is to pay you if it advances someone's interest..

There's no money in pointing out that the sky is not falling.

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[RocketLauncher]

He's not "dumb". This is intentional, especially now with Que here....it's classic sealioning.

https://i.imgur.com/UjhgVmR.jpg

Agree, mostly. They are as dumb as a bag of hammers. When politely given an opportunity to explain why they disagree with climate change they resort to deflection and ad hominem arguments. Classic sealioning, but largely unintentional.
Qeew, otoh, attempts to understand and refute the science behind it. Not stupid just misguided, sensitive and easily triggered. He kinda reminds of that child the mean kids pick on, the more abuse they toss his way the more he supports them and wants to be their friend. Come out of the dork side, Qeew.

 

[Klinkster]

You didn’t answer my question.

Sounds familiar.

 

[RocketLauncher]

^Classic. I wish Trump would build that wall so they could go bang their heads against it. Everyone needs a hobby, amirite?

 

[Klinkster]

You have a hobby.
It’s posting senseless comments.
And not answering questions.

^Classic. I wish Trump would build that wall so they could go bang their heads against it. Everyone needs a hobby, amirite?