Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

You are doing the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la..la..la..la.." repeatedly. I've given you multiple peer reviewed references to multiple experiments definitively showing that CO2 is a greenhouse and you haven't read any of them...not one. You are not just an AGW denier. You are a science denier.

 

Consensus does motter, but it does (/irony and sarcasm).

Refuting 100+ pages. 200+ studies:


1. There is refute if propositions of a theory are built on a confirmed and repeated experiment, because it is science.

2. There is no refute if propositions of a “theory” are not built on a confirmed and repeated experiment because it is a belief, and ideology, a religion.

3. GW “ theory” has been having no experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy from the sun during the day than it emits to the infinite mass of the coldest body of the universe during the night.

4. Therefore GW “ theory” whether man-made or non-man made does not belong to science, but to a religion, political ideology, a belief, no matter how many pages and how many studies it has.

5. It was easy.

6. ( That is not even counting that it has a scientific consensus as an argument.)

 

We should equip liberals with buckets of water and fly them to the sun.

 

Here is the data, https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/

Either you refute it, or you concede. Please don't give me arm-chair theory and pretend you debunked nearly an entire field of science because you said you did.

If it's easy, you'll quote multiple portions of that review and tell me how they are wrong with a peer reviewed paper as citation.

 

Liberals? Uhhh....most Americans now think AGW/GW is real. Mostly because the science community has been doing a better job of giving out the facts.

I'll trust 13 federal agencies, 97% of the climate scientists and their studies, and most major science organizations over ....Sean Hannity?

 

Aside from #3 being blatantly false the rest of this post is based on the 'ole "nuh uh" argument.

 

With what does this mythical "97%" agree, commie?

 

I'm not even close to being a liberal and I acknowledge the science behind AGW.

 

That AGW is real.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ublican-witness-global-warming-consensus-real
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

lol mythic...less Hannity and Breitbart man.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#404f1a1d485d

gullible buffoons

 

which part of the "science" do you acknowledge....the doctoring or the pencil whipping?

 

Anyone can check #3 to see if it is the 'ole "nuh uh" argument or the truth and only truth.

3. GW “ theory” has been having no experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy from the sun during the day than it emits to the infinite mass of the coldest body of the universe during the night.

Anyone can see that you have not submitted a single one, just one, not 2, not 10, not 100 but just one experiment.

I quoted your reply in full, is it there or all you have submitted is the 'ole "nuh uh" argument?

Anyone can see that you have submitted no experiment but exactly the 'ole "nuh uh" argument.

That is if someone has some brain.

You keep on counting that nobody does have brain.

I keep on counting that somebody may have some brain.

That is all the difference.

 

That opinion piece you just linked was published in 2013. The study I linked was published in 2016, and revised methodology which adresses the issues with 5 more studies.

It has not yet been refuted.

 

If you're so certain it's false, you can refute it.

Here, https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

 

So the 100s of pages and 100s of studies I linked are all false? You read them all that fast?


What do you know that the entire field of climate doesn't?

 

It seems you found an easier prey to harass.

Still waiting for you reply:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-become-arid.522744/page-13#post-1068537433

 

What am I looking at.

I can't give a real reply until you refute the federal report via quoting incorrect portions of it and disproving them with peer reviewed studies.

You can't claim agw/gw is false without factually dismissing the nigh endless data proving it is real.

 

1. Yes
2. Did you read my 4 sentence refute of 100s of studies?
3.Did you read my 4 sentence refute of 100s of studies?

Do I have to repeat it the 2nd time for you and for 100s of studies to address?

Do you understand you have been repeating the scientific consensus argument in each and every reply of yours though you have acknowledge that it has no value?


Did you read my 4 sentence refute of 100s of studies:

1. There is no refute if propositions of a theory are built on a confirmed and repeated experiment, because it is science.

2. There is no refute if propositions of a “theory” are not built on a confirmed and repeated experiment because it is a belief, and ideology, a religion.

3. GW “ theory” has been having no experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy from the sun during the day than it emits to the infinite mass of the coldest body of the universe during the night.

4. Therefore GW “ theory” whether man-made or non-man made does not belong to science, but to a religion, political ideology, a belief, no matter how many pages and how many studies it has.

?

 

So what?

 

I'm very happy the tone has shifted away from flat denial.

That was just dumb stuff and made our country look like a bunch of idiots.

 

I'm sad that you have shifted to fabrication.

Oh, I think the fools are those that fear warmth and CO^2.

 

Nevertheless, understanding the two is not - which of course is the point you're obscuring, unwittingly or otherwise.

What the hell do I care, when no method has enough of a track record to support a realistic evaluation?

You're talking about second hand evidence at best - which is not what I'm talking about.

Now you're not talking about evidence at all.

All that aside, as happy as you are to lecture, you ignored the one question I asked, so here it is again: why should people find particularly compelling the pronouncements of those who are more intelligent than themselves?

 

Which doctoring and pencil whipping are you referring to?

Note, before you answer this question I advise double checking your source because if you don't I certainly will.

 

I like your reaction.

It is my pleasure to repeat:

All useful laws, all useful theories of natural sciences are based on experiment.

There has been not even a single attempt of an experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more incoming radiation during the day than it emits during the night.

No other or further argument is needed.

"....for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes." Newton. Scientific method.

Spit again.

Or fart.

Or vomit.

And keep on living in that environment.

It is my pleasure to repeat:

Consensus or majority has no place in the scientific method, appeal to consensus is a proof of anti-science, no matter what is the degree or name, NASA, NAS, IPCC, or how many 20, 200 or 2500.

Spit again.

Or fart.

Or vomit.

And keep on living in that environment.