Search results

Neither of those events were global. They were northern European. Volcanoes caused the Little Ice Age. Solar output variations have very little to do with climate changes. Orbital changes to solar input have a much greater effect.

There is thing called google. You should try it sometime skip.

Nope. Wrong again skippy.

Nice selection of useless cherry picked selective data and irrelevant charts. Is this supposed to mean something?

Yes, there is no pause in warming so your festering pile of bullshit is wrong. That's what you meant to say right? You seem to be avoiding the essential truth that you are full shit. You and Salby.

The above chart includes ocean temps. This does not Pause? No.

Let me stop you early on because what you say here is false and therefore makes the rest of your festering pile of bullshit a moot point and a waste of time.... "Currently global temperature is not rising,"

http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm Please note that the GH effect from CO2 and the possibility of AGW...

blah blah meaningless bleating from the crazed right wing sheep Quoting Salby is a non-starter. It is well established that he is a a fool and conservative think tank whore in addition to being a thief and a fraud. By quoting him you are immediately asking to laughed at. Try NOAA and NASA...

Yes, we know jerm. Do unto others then split. What's mine is mine and fuck you if you're having problems. And Church is for personal salvation only. You preach savage regressive Libertarianism. Jesus would be appalled. Hypocrite. Welfare is a good Christian thing to do and the...

1) No. 2) No. 3) Wrong. 4) Wrong. 5) Irrelevant. https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains

Thank you for admitting that you are just repeating a made-up term to belittle and ad hom a bedrock climate science 101 principle. To argue that it is wrong is simply eye-rubbing absurdly incorrect. It's better referred to as the Arrhenius Hypothesis. It has withstood and been validated by...

Like I thought, you don't have a clue what they are doing. Your ignorance is immense. Hint: Georgy is doing watercolors and Bill is doing philanthropic work.

No need to state the obvious. It's redundant at this point. You'll have to look up the word.

Do you know what the term "draft" statement means? Hint, it is not related to beer. LOL

Oh yeah? What has Bill Clinton been doing and what has Georgy been doing? Any idea at all? Do they talk about it on the GOP propaganda network? Ie Fox News?

Seriously, what the fuck are you babbling about? Freedom to pollute? Freedom to ignore the needy like the good fake "Christian" you are? You've been watching too much Faux News.

So where is the link showing the "Hansen Hypothesis" is a thing. Google turns up nothing. I just proved you wrong by showing that Arrhenius was the first to state the obvious phenomena in 1896. There is no "Hansen Hypothesis" and Arrhenius would certainly not reject his own hypothesis since...