quote:

Speculation is the precisely the correct word here, "evidence" not so much. The CO2 hypothesis is effectively non-falsifiable. We cannot model the Earth's climate

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I choose to go by THIS from the IPCC.

"Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts
on human and natural systems. {1}"

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}"

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}"

"In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on
all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective
of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate. "

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950.
Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature
extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea
levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. {1.4}

"Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting
changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe,
pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would
require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together
with adaptation, can limit climate change risks. {2}"

"Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission
scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that
extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The
ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise. {2.2}"



Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Classic drooling mouth breather tactic.

Just call the scientists that disagree with you (even if it's the vast majority of scientists) "socialist" (even if you're too fucking clueless to have the vaguest notion of what that term actually means) and "hey presto".

Fuck me, how many keyboards do you destroy each week with your drool?

The thing that tells the tale that needs to be told here is how leftists routinely have to rely on ad homimens and other debate fallacies to defend their positions

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Classic drooling mouth breather tactic.

Just call the scientists that disagree with you (even if it's the vast majority of scientists) "socialist" (even if you're too fucking clueless to have the vaguest notion of what that term actually means) and "hey presto".

Fuck me, how many keyboards do you destroy each week with your drool?

The thing that tells the tale that needs to be told here is how leftists routinely have to rely on ad homimens and other debate fallacies to defend their positions

You drooling stain.. No actual answers still... just parroting your usual bullshit.

Is it time for your diaper change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Classic drooling mouth breather tactic.

Just call the scientists that disagree with you (even if it's the vast majority of scientists) "socialist" (even if you're too fucking clueless to have the vaguest notion of what that term actually means) and "hey presto".

Fuck me, how many keyboards do you destroy each week with your drool?

The thing that tells the tale that needs to be told here is how leftists routinely have to rely on ad homimens and other debate fallacies to defend their positions

You drooling stain.. No actual answers still... just parroting your usual bullshit.

Is it time for your diaper change?

I hate to say this but a diaper change might be several decades overdue ......