- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 66,720
- Reaction score
- 33,250
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy!
It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy!Citing the IPCC almost guarantees being published.
The goalpost is “ empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming”It’s because you move the goalposts when I do.
No, the AGW scare isn't a conspiracy. Not as I think of conspiracies anyway. Different groups are not "conspiring." It has become an economic force of it's own, and people want to dip into it. It's human nature. Not a conspiracy.It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy!
It’s there.The goalpost is “ empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming”
It is ether in the IPCC report or it’s not, and you have never been able to quote the section that shows the above evidence.
Actually since you are the one making the claim that the IPCC report contains empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming, you need to support your claim!It’s there.
Not my problem you can’t find it.
And not my job to show you yet again.
WTF?Actually since you are the one making the claim that the IPCC report contains empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming, you need to support your claim!
Also your claim that you have cited and quoted the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming from the IPCC report in the past is false!
Again would imply you think something happened before, but you have never quoted from the IPCC report where they showed the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming !WTF?
Again?
The National Hurricane Center says they have data supporting the conclusions they arrive at and I'll bet you a cup of coffee that, at some point, you have believed them. No, they have no proof. But why would you doubt them? Because all scientists are scrambling for funding?Do they say that they have the data or is that simply implied? The data does not exist!
there are plenty of sources to validate claims made by the national hurricane center, and I question some of the claims made. But this has nothing to do with if any studies have empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!The National Hurricane Center says they have data supporting the conclusions they arrive at and I'll bet you a cup of coffee that, at some point, you have believed them. No, they have no proof. But why would you doubt them? Because all scientists are scrambling for funding?
Again would imply you think something happened before, but you have never quoted from the IPCC report where they showed the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming !
Sorry goofs but assumptions of radiative forcing do not count as empirical evidence!How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
<p>An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared...skepticalscience.com
View attachment 67577215
But yes, it does. It directly has to do with believing scientists.this has nothing to do with if any studies have empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!
Not really, the statements by the hurricane center can be verified by other sources, but there is no source that shows empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!But yes, it does. It directly has to do with believing scientists.
Lol...How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
<p>An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared...skepticalscience.com
View attachment 67577215
This bullshit again?But yes, it does. It directly has to do with believing scientists.
And the goalposts move.Sorry goofs but assumptions of radiative forcing do not count as empirical evidence!
No one measured a change in Earth’s longwave energy imbalance as the CO2 levels increased!
It’s sourced material, unlike the vapor you pull out of your ass.This bullshit again?
Do you really think the media and bloggers telling you this, are the scientists?
Nope the goalpost is the same as stated,And the goalposts move.
The only acceptable definition of empirical evidence is whatever doesn’t exist.
That’s why i dont waste my time with you.
So read and quote the source material, or are you too lazy?It’s sourced material, unlike the vapor you pull out of your ass.
So you can whine about that, too?So read and quote the source material, or are you too lazy?
Sorry.So you can whine about that, too?
No thanks.
Not the question of THIS thread.Not at all it’s at the core of the question!
You say that as if it were a bad word. I don't care what you call it. It's a proven hypothesis (meaning it has a high degree of certainty) that is part of a proven theory (meaning it has a high degree of certainty) called AGW. But not the topic of this thread. Open a thread if you want to discuss that.The idea that added CO2 causes warming is and always has been a hypothesis.
You have NO clue how peer-review works, do you? You ALMOST convinced me that you had a clue about science when you talked about all those magazines you subscribe to. But by subscribing to magazines and not READING them (or understanding them... not sure which), you're just throwing money away.Citing the IPCC almost guarantees being published.
the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming is central to any agreement that NetZero CO2 emissions would alter what is happening with the climate.Not the question of THIS thread.
You say that as if it were a bad word. I don't care what you call it. It's a proven hypothesis (meaning it has a high degree of certainty) that is part of a proven theory (meaning it has a high degree of certainty) called AGW. But not the topic of this thread. Open a thread if you want to discuss that.
You claimed there was a peer-reviewed study that DISPROVED that CO2 could NOT contribute to Global Warming and, though not the topic of this thread, I asked you for a quote and a link. And you failed. So there is not much more to say about the topic.
Then the respect is mutual. I guess.Sorry.
I have zero respect for people who only give links and not quotes, especially when they come from lying bloggers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?