Search results

Two loaded questions neither of which are making much sense.

Maybe it's something else. The latter does the same as the former, except of course the latter's known to exist.

Though the concept of a deity having always existed doesn't seem to bother the religious, but the Universe doing so apparently will.

You're saying it takes intelligence to create a stupid universe. That doesn't really work, does it.

But why would you.

Which suggests faith often isn't all it's jacked up to be.

....

Personally I'm not sure Jem is smart enough to play devil's advocate fc. To take the worse side just for the sake of argument and make it rational takes a degree of intelligence which in my opinion Jem doesn't portray at all . I've noticed you call him out for admitting there is AGW but at the...

here is a quote from Jem..." you have some proof that man made co2 is causing warming on earth."

You're too angry Jem and comparatively recently have developed yourself into a fully fledged irrational troll. You teach me...yeah sure, well here's something I'll teach you. Evolution is not about the origins of life. I'm not going to waste time on you. Once you learn the basics, get back...

Thank you piezo, and I appreciate your civility. I just do not accept that doubts like the ones you raise are in any way substantial or substantiated. This whole GW debate does remind me of the Evolution one, where those who simply don't believe or more precisely don't want to believe...

Criticizing the use of the Bern Model by methods assumptions and interpretations that beg numerous questions of their own, does not make the IPCC use of the Bern Model flawed. Neither does merely accepting that there are perceived flaws, invalidate overall scientific consensus though you seem...

"Doing" estate law would be why you kept spelling cite as site.

...from the atmosphere. That is patently not how the standard set up model was being used.

So let's get this straight. You are saying attributing all increases of CO2 as anthropomorphic is NOT inherent in the Bern Model. Yet the keystone of what Patterson asserts relies on the opposite of that and worse, it bases his own conclusions on the faulty assumption that the Bern Model does...

Petterson doesn't stand for reasons given. Salby doesn't stand for reasons given. Science behind AGW is not based on two wrongs make a right.

Seriously?! The Bern model is used for studying the relationship between anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2. It is not the assumption all observed increases in CO2 is anthro. Try again.

Ah right... so Patterson speaks of 50 years turnaround cycles forming his own ahem.. model, so he must be a nutter pulling out buzzwords and bullshit . Got it. Just doubting stuff for no real reason, or just assuming (or is it a hope) that error analysis hasn't been done, is not valid...

Thanks also piezo. I'm not sure we can go much further as it appears there is no valid argument being put by skeptic/deniers here. One turnover time of atmosphere as it were, is a false argument in respect to this issue. A distraction based on a wrong assumption. Turnover in the atmosphere say...

With respect piezo I think you are looking for an incorrect thing. I mentioned all this above, but just to recap. In general terms I take it then we are now agreed that basically because of C14, anthropic Co2 can be traced in the atmosphere. It is therefore understood how much anthropic CO2...