"Global Warming is rubbish"

[Acebb 2,175]

again, why not 100%?

If 97% of experts claimed Salmon swim upstream to lay eggs, wouldn't you be curious as to why its not 100%. The fact is, 100% do agree. duh!

I will await your hysterical reply and insult.

Bonus question, if there is "proof" of global warming, why don't scientists understand the 17 year pause in any global temperature increases?

[h=1]Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot[/h]
PS: Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology

 

[MantisToboggan 1,855]

Cannot believe that a global warming thread has seen 13 pages in 5 days. Pretty impressive. Would have bet the under 10 for sure.

 

[Acebb 2,175]

You are literally one of the dumbest people I've ever met, lol. It says it specifically...

The primary components of external forcing over the past century are human caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases.

What's funny is this is one of the publications that the NASA site uses to support their claim that global warming is real. It's not one of your .com blogs. Lol.

Damn you are dumb.

Except I've never quoted a ".com blog" idiot.

Further, you don't seem to understand that a statement in the paper doesn't constitute "proof"

You really are an abject idiot.

 

[SheriffJoe 3,240]

"changes in TLS from 1979 to 2011"

:hahahahah

The earth is billions of years old. Are they fucking kidding! face)(*^%

 

[akphidelt 0]

Except I've never quoted a ".com blog" idiot.

Further, you don't seem to understand that a statement in the paper doesn't constitute "proof"

You really are an abject idiot.

It's proof that smart people think global warming is real.

What you are looking for doesn't exist. It's the common logical fallacy approach used by religious people.

 

[akphidelt 0]

Cannot believe that a global warming thread has seen 13 pages in 5 days. Pretty impressive. Would have bet the under 10 for sure.

Come on man, there's some real scientists here that know for a fact global warming is not real! I'm just trying to get knowledge from them!

 

[Acebb 2,175]

You are literally one of the dumbest people I've ever met, lol. It says it specifically...

You actually believe, I mean you are saying this in all seriousness, that because the paper makes a claim, the claim is fact and therefore "proof" of global warming.

You're not a moron or anything.

 

[Acebb 2,175]

It's proof that smart people think global warming is real.

What you are looking for doesn't exist. It's the common logical fallacy approach used by religious people.

So in other words, there is no proof the globe is warming despite the fact you said there were "1,000s of papers" that prove the globe is warming.

 

[Acebb 2,175]

It's proof that smart people think global warming is real.

Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology

 

[akphidelt 0]

You actually believe, I mean you are saying this in all seriousness, that because the paper makes a claim, the claim is fact and therefore "proof" of global warming.

You're not a moron or anything.

I'm saying, 1000s of these papers, that deal with a subject I have no clue about how to test or come to conclusions say it is real. The people saying it isn't are retards like you and Sheriff Joe. I'm simply saying I believe them over you. Not going to lie. It was a difficult decision because you come across as such a smart person, but I just couldn't do it.

 

[akphidelt 0]

So in other words, there is no proof the globe is warming despite the fact you said there were "1,000s of papers" that prove the globe is warming.

There is plenty of proof it is warming. The debate is whether it's caused by man made actions or not, lol. 99.99% of educated people understand that the atmosphere is warming. You are really dumb.

 

[Acebb 2,175]

I'm saying, 1000s of these papers, that deal with a subject I have no clue about how to test or come to conclusions say it is real.

So you're admitting you lied, or at a minimum were peddling dumb BS, and you don't know the scientific method.

Perhaps you shouldn't comment on the topic, then? Because you look like an imbecile.

 

[Acebb 2,175]

There is plenty of proof it is warming.

Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot

No, no there is not.

 

[akphidelt 0]

So you're admitting you lied, or at a minimum were peddling dumb BS, and you don't know the scientific method.

Perhaps you shouldn't comment on the topic, then? Because you look like an imbecile.

What are you talking about? Lmao!! You are so dumb.

 

[Acebb 2,175]

What are you talking about? Lmao!! You are so dumb.

You actually don't know what the scientific method is.

You said:

"I have no clue about how to test or come to conclusions say it is real."

If there was 'proof' of global warming, the scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests

 

[akphidelt 0]

You actually don't know what the scientific method is.

You said:

"I have no clue about how to test or come to conclusions say it is real."

If there was 'proof' of global warming, the scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests

I know what the scientific method is, so do scientists. Every intelligent person in the world knows that you cannot put an atmosphere in a lab and test the affects of greenhouse gasses. The fact you think saying "scientific method" makes you seem smart is absolutely hilarious.

You are a weird dude.

 

[SheriffJoe 3,240]

fratfraud doesn't believe in the scientific method, but he sure loves them bogus political and economical surveys!

w-thumbs!^

 

[akphidelt 0]

fratfraud doesn't believe in the scientific method, but he sure loves them bogus political and economical surveys!

w-thumbs!^

Same logical fallacy religious people use. That's why you guys are a part of the retard bar.

 

[scottcarter 0]

Because you can't replicate an atmosphere. It's just an analysis of data. 3% think the analysis of the data is not sufficient enough to make the claim that global warming is man made. 97% think the data is.

or perhaps as I have stated before and shown video evidence that the majority understand that finding in favor that it is man made equates to funding?

[h=1]Misleading ‘97 Percent of Scientists’ Claim Resurfaces in NY Times[/h]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-c...tists-claim-resurfaces-ny-times#ixzz2ybfzpJgP
​

Morano argued that the number of research papers during this time period alone isn’t a compelling factor, even if the numbers had been accurate. According to Morano, since global warming is the “state sponsored science of the day,” many scientists will incorporate mention of it into otherwise unrelated studies, in order to qualify for grants

“and to this day, it continues to win me the enmity of those who have conflated a problem of science and society with partisan politics.”

​

 

[Acebb 2,175]

I know what the scientific method is, so do scientists. Every intelligent person in the world knows that you cannot put an atmosphere in a lab and test the affects of greenhouse gasses. The fact you think saying "scientific method" makes you seem smart is absolutely hilarious.

You are a weird dude.

How did scientists put the continents in the lab for continental drift theory?

Note: the fact you think something has to go in a "lab" is high brow comedy.

Your posts on this topic are the epitome of what happens when low IQ meets topical ignorance.