Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Nope....just showing how you are being played.

 

The Medieval Warm Period is one of the most well studied periods of time in history. Over 600 scientific papers have been published on it and over 2000 papers which include the Little Ice Age have been published as well. The global warming alarmists waited for years to "get rid of" the MWP so as to sell the idea that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the highest temperatures in recorded (there is that qualifier again) history. So one paper which was subsequently been completely discredited as (to put it generously) junk science was used by the alarmists to sell their idea manifested as the hockey stick which eliminated both the MWP and the LIA. It's very clear just who has been played. Do your homework and you would know these things.

 

You are still being played by two faced politicians.

 

Logical fallacy. Appeal to authority. International conspiracy. Boy I love the shoe being on the other foot.

 

Learn a new phrase ??

 

There is a cure for ignorance. But it requires initiative and curiosity.

 

Don't hate the player.....hate the game. You invented it. LOL

 

Over 4,000 papers have been published on global warming and 97% of scientists support their conclusions. Your evidence is underwhelming. In fact, your evidence is a joke.

 

LOL, you don't even know what the 97% represents.

 

You tell me.

 

Don't get him started....science is not his forte.

 

His lack of knowledge is not my concern.

 

Thank god. LOL

 

Yes staying unknowledgeable does seem to be a few people's forte along with the usual logical fallacies of which you seem to be so fond of.

 

Yep....me and every science agency on the planet. LOL

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

You're welcome....and have a super day!

 

But your forte seems to be ignorance and propoganda. You can't answer my question because your original question was an attempt to move the goalpost and set a trap. It isn't my fault your strategy failed.

 

Yet you still don't know what the 97% number represents. Go figure.

 

You tell me.

 

That 97% claim is not what you think it is. Do some homework. The evidence I cite is based on real world data. The "evidence" that you cite is based on the upper limits of general circulation models which cannot hindcast the past. It's clear which "evidence" is a joke.

The evidence I cite is based on data. The "evidence" on catastrophic AGW is based on speculation from the upper limits of general circulation models which can't hindcast the past. It's clear whose evidence is a joke

 

The scientific community disagrees with you

 

The word consensus means general agreement. Look it up.

 

Okay let's look at it this way. 97% of the scientific community agrees global warming is happening. Some person on the internet says they are wrong, the evidence is fake, and he knows better. So, it still boils down to the fact that the people who study the subject are wrong and some dude on the internet is right.

 

Here is the stupidity of the bogus 97%. Everyone agrees that it's warming and has been since the end of the Little Ice Age. You seem to think that bogus number means something but you don't even know what it represents.