So, you're worried about global warming?

[Deuce]

Mainstream is not science. The clique mentality doesn't work in science. This isn't Jr. high school.

Please stop denying science.

'
Sure are a lot of scientists out there "denying science" in your book.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All three are scientific facts and you cannot show otherwise. We know for certain that CO2 molecules hold heat and thereby an increased number of them as a result of human activities will cause warming in the atmosphere.

Yes, CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. Other factors cause the earth to retain heat also.

 

[Lord of Planar]

'
Sure are a lot of scientists out there "denying science" in your book.

Very, very few. I could probably count on one hand.

 

[watsup]

Yes, CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. Other factors cause the earth to retain heat also.

What is the primary cause of the present global warming?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What is the primary cause of the present global warming?

The changes in TSI, most likely.

 

[watsup]

The changes in TSI, most likely.

I don't need a paper. All I need is an article of some sort that undergirds your claim. Thanks in advance.

 

[watsup]

The changes in TSI, most likely.

See the thread "Does the sun cause global warming or climate change?

 

[Threegoofs]

The changes in TSI, most likely.

Literally no credible scientist agrees.

In fact, you’ll never find a paper or a lecture saying this.

But you do you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't need a paper. All I need is an article of some sort that undergirds your claim. Thanks in advance.

Yes, we already know you don't read peer reviewed papers. What is "undergirds?" Looks like you meant under girls. Under age girls?

 

[watsup]

Yes, we already know you don't read peer reviewed papers. What is "undergirds?" Looks like you meant under girls. Under age girls?

So you can’t cite a paper that undergirds your claim that TSI is the primary cause of the present global warming? Well okay then! You’d rather deflect. I understand that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you can’t cite a paper that undergirds your claim that TSI is the primary cause of the present global warming? Well okay then! You’d rather deflect. I understand that.

Sure I can if I want to look it up. It at least "suggests" TSI changes are a greater influence. Again, no scientist that wishes to maintain their reputation will make a claim that something is absolute, without far better evidence. Like the evidence we have for gravity.

A past paper give TSI as having a greater influence than CO2. I've seen it a few years back. It's been linked here a few years back. I just don't feel it necessary to look for something hard to find every time you deny something was presented.

This is a pattern with you. It appears you have memory problems.

I think my example of showing how TSI levels are only given credit for the direct changes, and the indirect changes conveniently ignores, should be enough.

Why should I spend more than a few minutes humoring you when all you do is demand the same material you forgot in the past? I suggest you see a doctor and have your memory checked.

 

[watsup]

Sure I can if I want to look it up. It at least "suggests" TSI changes are a greater influence. Again, no scientist that wishes to maintain their reputation will make a claim that something is absolute, without far better evidence. Like the evidence we have for gravity.

A past paper give TSI as having a greater influence than CO2. I've seen it a few years back. It's been linked here a few years back. I just don't feel it necessary to look for something hard to find every time you deny something was presented.

This is a pattern with you. It appears you have memory problems.

I think my example of showing how TSI levels are only given credit for the direct changes, and the indirect changes conveniently ignores, should be enough.

Why should I spend more than a few minutes humoring you when all you do is demand the same material you forgot in the past? I suggest you see a doctor and have your memory checked.

Ad hom and lame excuses. It’s the deflection that we always expect from you.

 

[watsup]

Sure I can if I want to look it up. It at least "suggests" TSI changes are a greater influence. Again, no scientist that wishes to maintain their reputation will make a claim that something is absolute, without far better evidence. Like the evidence we have for gravity.

A past paper give TSI as having a greater influence than CO2. I've seen it a few years back. It's been linked here a few years back. I just don't feel it necessary to look for something hard to find every time you deny something was presented.

This is a pattern with you. It appears you have memory problems.

I think my example of showing how TSI levels are only given credit for the direct changes, and the indirect changes conveniently ignores, should be enough.

Why should I spend more than a few minutes humoring you when all you do is demand the same material you forgot in the past? I suggest you see a doctor and have your memory checked.

So you can’t actually cite a specific paper. Well okay then.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you can’t actually cite a specific paper. Well okay then.

Do you realize how many thousands of papers there are?

I don';t give a rip what you think. After all this time of showing good evidence to you, you always do the same thing.

You deny science.

Why should I waste my time searching for a hard to find paper? Google is not friendly on items that receive very few hits.

 

[watsup]

Do you realize how many thousands of papers there are?

I don';t give a rip what you think. After all this time of showing good evidence to you, you always do the same thing.

You deny science.

Why should I waste my time searching for a hard to find paper? Google is not friendly on items that receive very few hits.

More deflection and ad hom. It’s what we always expect of you.
I went back and looked and, sure ‘nuff, all that I asked for was an article, anything at all, to support your TSI claim. Unlike you, I am not all hung up on “papers”, but rather understand that they can be accurately summarized in science-based articles. Do you have any?
I suppose that you will now get in a high dander again. It’s what you do when to avoid staying with the meat of the subject by trying to put others on the defensive on a personal basis. It’s a dishonest tactic, but one you continually hang your hat on.

 

[Buzz]

Do you realize how many thousands of papers there are?

I don';t give a rip what you think. After all this time of showing good evidence to you, you always do the same thing.

You deny science.

Why should I waste my time searching for a hard to find paper? Google is not friendly on items that receive very few hits.

Then don't use Google. If what you say about having cited something here is true, then just search this forum. It isn't that hard. I do it all the time.