A Great Victory - Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement

we concluded hillary kiled seth rich as a fact?

why are you lying about the seth rich discussion. the discussion was about whether fox news claimed to have federal law enforcement sources. They did make that claim. Even if they then retracted the argument. They did make the claim. That is the difference between fact and fake dnc troll crap.

Yes, 'we' as you in your cult has concluded it, it's all over your fake websites

They made a claim that was proven false so retracted it, how the fuck is that a fact when it doesn't even exist anymore? What happened to KIM DOTCOM evidence, any evidence from PAMELA DOTORG or SAM DOTNET? Talking about trolls, you have no problem getting trolled by conmen
 
post the paper you low integrity troll. don't change the argument post the paper that backs op your claims....
we are curious to see if you were telling the truth or lying agian.

Here comes the inbred hick who can't even find a paper from the first page of a website but he has the gall to insult others because others are not as dumb as him.
 
troll ass wipe.... I posted that link the last time we had this discussion and above in this thread.

now tell us which paper supports the statement you made. I want to read the paper. so I can see if it stands for anything with respect to man made co2.


"Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used."

I don't give a fuck what you posted, if you can't find the papers listed then what dumbass research have you ever done in your miserable life?Do you even know where to find scientific papers? Then how the fuck can you say you haven't seen any paper that goes against your cult view.

Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:1.. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000101

What the fuck do you think this is you retard, all you got is insults just because your damaged brain can't process anything that doesn't come out of Fox News
 
Here, in case you go on another insult tirade because you can't find the 'paper'

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf


"

Te residual variability in land-surface temperature which
remains after the volcanic and CO2 correlation is subtracted out is
observed to closely mirror and for slower changes, slightly lead
variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index. Tis is
consistent with both the land and North Atlantic responding to the
same unknown process. Tat process may be partially anthropogenic
and include effects whose time evolution is not proportional to CO2.
It might also include natural processes. Our analysis does not rule
out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the
long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by
a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to
assume other sources of long-term variation are present. If all of the
residual evolution during the last 150 years is assumed to be natural,
then it places an upper 95% confidence bound on the scale of decadal
natural variability at ± 0.17°C. Tough non-trivial, this number is
small compared to what our correlation analysis suggests may be
anthropogenic changes that occurred during the last century"
 
now you got it. see how much easier it is when you provide a link...
so we can actually discuss the science and you can learn how you mis represented everything important.

your explanation just showed Mueller in deed relied on a model contrary to your post above...

his findings do not rule out natural causes.
which is exactly what I told you about the null hypothesis...

and on top of that it says...

it may be partially anthropogenic.
that is a far cry from the b.s. you were spewing..

I agree warming could be partially anthropogenic. Of course it could be.
I simply state there is no peer reviewed science showing it is man made co2.


===
Finally let me tell you what explains your guys findings.


There is a massive correllation between temperature change and co2 levels .
the correlation is 90%...

its just that change in earth temperature and change in ocean temps lead the change in co2.

here is a paper in a real peer reviewed journal that explains there is a correlation and it trails change in ocean temps...



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.



Here, in case you go on another insult tirade because you can't find the 'paper'

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf


"

Te residual variability in land-surface temperature which
remains after the volcanic and CO2 correlation is subtracted out is
observed to closely mirror and for slower changes, slightly lead
variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index. Tis is
consistent with both the land and North Atlantic responding to the
same unknown process. Tat process may be partially anthropogenic
and include effects whose time evolution is not proportional to CO2.
It might also include natural processes. Our analysis does not rule
out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the
long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by
a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to
assume other sources of long-term variation are present. If all of the
residual evolution during the last 150 years is assumed to be natural,
then it places an upper 95% confidence bound on the scale of decadal
natural variability at ± 0.17°C. Tough non-trivial, this number is
small compared to what our correlation analysis suggests may be
anthropogenic changes that occurred during the last century"
 
now you got it.

its a model.
it does not rule out natural causes.
which is exactly what I told you about the null hypothesis...

and on top of that it says...

it maybe partially anthropogenic.
that is a far cry from the b.s. you were spewing..

I agree warming could be partially anthropogenic. Of course it could be.
I simply state there is no peer reviewed science showing it is man made co2.


===
Finally let me tell you what rips this model apart.

There is a massive correllation between temperature change and co2.
the correlation is 90%...

its just that change in earth temperature and change in ocean temps lead the change in co2.

here is a paper in a real peer reviewed journal that explains there is a correlation and it trails change in ocean temps...



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Blah blah blah

Salvage whatever you can get after your embarrassment display over the last few posts, nowhere did I say it was COMPLETELY anthropocentric so you are debating yourself again as usual OR as it's known in the right wing world, construct a strawman and then make phony arguments and pretend you won it. The fact that natural causes cannot account for the increased temperatures IS THE KEY conclusion from the study, that completely destroys your narrative but whatever, when have you ever cared for science and data.
 
you have no integrity.... you acted like you had science and you overstated what you think you had...

you said he proved it was co2 conclusively...

it was a model troll ... that is not scientific proof. its not conclusive. by the way anthropogenic does not mean man made co2 causes warming it means... a far more general all of mans activities... or polluting activities... may contribute to warming.

I agree with that statement.. it is likely man's activities create some warming.




Blah blah blah

Salvage whatever you can get after your embarrassment display over the last few posts, nowhere did I say it was COMPLETELY anthropocentric so you are debating yourself again as usual OR as it's known in the right wing world, construct a strawman and then make phony arguments and pretend you won it. The fact that natural causes cannot account for the increased temperatures IS THE KEY conclusion from the study, that completely destroys your narrative but whatever, when have you ever cared for science and data.
 
Last edited:
you have no integrity.... you acted like you had science an your overstated what you think you had...



it was a model troll ... that is not scientific proof.

Quote me where I said it was COMPLETELY man made, just quote me. Prove that I have no integrity, you just lie every time you get caught in your BS. Last time you kept banging about Fox News 'source' when you would reject anything that's not pro-Trump with an unnamed source - and then your Fox News article got completely nuked and yet you kept insisting that it was real.

Now quote me where I stated that it was COMPLETELY man made, how can I overstate something when I never made that statement.

Quote me or admit you are liar.
 
Back
Top