quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you got one? lets see your model and underlying basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

WTF?
SO all these thousands of scientists and studies upon studies proving man has caused devastating climate change are all a figment of your imagination? Thats the best you can do? No one gives a rats ass about the playground in head. sorry.

quote:

Just after appearing to endorse
peer-reviewed science, he added that “science should not be something that’s just thrown about to
try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

WTF?
SO all these thousands of scientists and studies upon studies proving man has caused devastating climate change are all a figment of your imagination? Thats the best you can do? No one gives a rats ass about the playground in head. sorry.

Agggh... fine, you fucking lazy cancer.

Statements from 18 highly reputable science associations:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Over 3000 results on this site-- not all of them about AGW, but many are. Now sort through them:

http://science.sciencemag.org/search/anthropogenic%252Bclimate%252Bchange%20numresults%3A10%20sort%3Arelevance-rank%20format_result%3Astandard

And this site has more:

http://www.nature.com/search?q=anthropogenic+climate+change

I know you're not going to accept the Cook consensus and I am really not interested in seeing links to fucking Marc Morano and popular technology and wattsupwiththat, so whatever.

You're too much of a clueless dumbass for this to be worthwhile, and you have already proven you can't reason by proclaiming the death of true science by citing TWO instances that don't even seem to be accurate and which you must have gotten from some sort of conspiracy site.
I'm not going to spend hours trawling through papers trying in vain to convince you that reality is better than delusion.

Keep being clueless... it's unfortunately your right.
The stupidest person ever to be president is now the president, so congratulations, your dreams have come true and finally you have someone you can relate to in power.
This must mean you are right about everything-- it only makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I didnt see a chart of any data proving the effects of man adding co2 into the system, as compared to man not adding any c02 into the system.

save yourself from giving me bullshit data claimed to be a test that are not VALID tests at all.

Apparently unlike you I have no need to trust their opinion (so far bullshit) for something I am perfectly capable of reviewing myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I didnt see a chart of any data proving the effects of man adding co2 into the system, as compared to man not adding any c02 into the system.

save yourself from giving me bullshit data claimed to be a test that are not VALID tests at all.

Apparently unlike you I have no need to trust their opinion (so far bullshit) for something I am perfectly capable of reviewing myself.

I am not your servant and I honestly don't care if you want to remain ignorant or not.
If you want to have an informed discussion then take some time and find the model results on your own.

I'm not going to scour the internet for links just because you're too much of a lazy prick to do it yourself.

But it's telling that you trust your own ignorance over actual science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I didnt see a chart of any data proving the effects of man adding co2 into the system, as compared to man not adding any c02 into the system.

save yourself from giving me bullshit data claimed to be a test that are not VALID tests at all.

Apparently unlike you I have no need to trust their opinion (so far bullshit) for something I am perfectly capable of reviewing myself.

I am not your servant and I honestly don't care if you want to remain ignorant or not.
If you want to have an informed discussion then take some time and find the model results on your own.

I'm not going to scour the internet for links just because you're too much of a lazy prick to do it yourself.

But it's telling that you trust your own ignorance over actual science.

instead why dont you simply tell us the truth, that you are pedaling authority as fact intsead of actual facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I didnt see a chart of any data proving the effects of man adding co2 into the system, as compared to man not adding any c02 into the system.

save yourself from giving me bullshit data claimed to be a test that are not VALID tests at all.

Apparently unlike you I have no need to trust their opinion (so far bullshit) for something I am perfectly capable of reviewing myself.

I am not your servant and I honestly don't care if you want to remain ignorant or not.
If you want to have an informed discussion then take some time and find the model results on your own.

I'm not going to scour the internet for links just because you're too much of a lazy prick to do it yourself.

But it's telling that you trust your own ignorance over actual science.

instead why dont you simply tell us the truth, that you are pedaling authority as fact intsead of actual facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I didnt see a chart of any data proving the effects of man adding co2 into the system, as compared to man not adding any c02 into the system.

save yourself from giving me bullshit data claimed to be a test that are not VALID tests at all.

Apparently unlike you I have no need to trust their opinion (so far bullshit) for something I am perfectly capable of reviewing myself.

I am not your servant and I honestly don't care if you want to remain ignorant or not.
If you want to have an informed discussion then take some time and find the model results on your own.

I'm not going to scour the internet for links just because you're too much of a lazy prick to do it yourself.

But it's telling that you trust your own ignorance over actual science.

instead why dont you simply tell us the truth, that you are pedaling authority as fact intsead of actual facts.

Because I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you.
Also because if I did, you would just dismiss it anyways.

I have had many climate change discussions across the internet, and they are by far the most frustrating... because they usually boil down to me reposting studies, links to NASA, Scientific American, etc... valid, reputable publications that are in turn dismissed in favor of Heartland-affiliated blogs featuring the same 12 people over and over, and of course the ever-enduring global conspiracy to destroy the economy with carbon taxes or whatever.
I am not a climatologist and I am not a scientist... for me the discussion begins and ends with me trusting people who are, typically because their conclusions make the most sense.

If you're not going to put any effort into this, it will only be that much harder.
So believe whatever you want... I don't care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
thanks but the problem you have is explaining why the temperatures were higher when there were no humans on earth than now and it goes without saying that carbon has no noticeable effect.


[img]https://tonycollinsblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-25-at-10-03-26-pm.png[/img]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS EPISODE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS BEING DRIVEN BY CO2 EMISSIONS.


which of course is why you peole get your asses handed to you everytime you try to sell this shit because the tests are insufficirnt

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS EPISODE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS BEING DRIVEN BY CO2 EMISSIONS.


which of course is why you peole get your asses handed to you everytime you try to sell this shit because the tests are insufficirnt

Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you just pretend I said shit I didn't say and then declare victory?

YOU said that because humans weren't around when the climate changed naturally, that proves.... something.
I'm pretty sure you were getting at the whole 'oh hey look, climate change occurs naturally... so all climate change must be natural then' idea.
I was pointing out that simply recognizing that the climate changes naturally DOESN'T prove that ALL climate change is natural... NOT that it proves what I personally believe.

How you even got it into your head that this makes a modicum of sense or that I would actually make such a claim is beyond me... I honestly think this topic, as well as logic in general, is just too difficult for you.

If I thought you could handle it, maybe we could talk about why AGW is such a widely accepted explanation for the observed changes in the global climate... but you can't, so we won't.

You would just keep saying dumb things like this and then possibly use another rape metaphor to declare victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


sure it does especially since its perfect timeing and right on que, a near perfect stochastic sign wave, and as we can see the temp today is going DOWN despite your insane fears and ill gotten conclusions!

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
I was pointing out that simply recognizing that the climate changes naturally DOESN'T prove that ALL climate change is natural...

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Ummm... so your GRAPH proves that it's natural?
The warming trend has been observed mostly in the last 70 years or so, and it has been accelerating rapidly since the late 70s... your graph shows the last 425,000 and then stops before it gets to the last century or so.

The planet isn't currently cooling... that's nonsense.
I was pretty puzzled why you felt the need to even include a graph with your weirdo post but I guess you were just being as incoherent as ever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you have no data,so keep barking at the moon!

yeh it does, its cyclical