Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[jem]

Just as we predicted the troll liar who calls other liars could not produce a single link to peer reviewed science. That is why so many lefties are so disgusting. They project their own lack of intergrity onto others. If you don't have the science just admit.
---

So do you admit there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming yet?

By the way when doing your search... for me... the 4th link down is a link to 31000 scientists skeptical of global warming. (yeah we know some of them don't meet your standards already so enough with the debunked crap. plenty of them have real science degrees.)

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

Google "global warming science". Liar/lawyer. Same thing.

Did you ever find a single expert that denies man made global warming? No? Not surprised.

 

[futurecurrents]

I did... not a single link to peer reviewed science.

So do you admit there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming yet?

By the way the 4th link down is a link to 31000 scientists skeptical of global warming. (yeah we know some of them don't meet your standards already so enough with the debunked crap. plenty of them have real science degrees.)

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

You are a liar, that list has been thouroughly debunked multiple times here. That you continue to offer it is just more proof that you are a fucking liar.

So let's see it. One statement from a publishing climatologist that denies man made global warming? It should very easy to find because he or she would literally be the only one.


It's amazing how you lawyers can lie so easily. It's like you enjoy it.

 

[jem]

sideshow baloney from the troll liar fc.

Where the hell is your link to peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming?
How come you can't produce even one peer reviewed article you lying sack.

here are 1350 plus skeptical papers -- peer reviewed... why can't you find one?
you are such a liar. you are sick. you sell greenhouse gases for a living.
you need to examine you life going in 2017. If your are rally concerned greenhouse gases are warming the planet... stop selling them.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

You are a liar, that list has been thouroughly debunked multiple times here. That you continue to offer it is just more proof that you are a fucking liar.

So let's see it. One statement from a publishing climatologist that denies man made global warming? It should very easy to find because he or she would literally be the only one.


It's amazing how you lawyers can lie so easily. It's like you enjoy it.

 

[futurecurrents]

sideshow baloney from the troll liar fc.

Where the hell is your link to peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming?
How come you can't produce even one peer reviewed article you lying sack.

here are 1350 plus skeptical papers -- peer reviewed... why can't you find one?
you are such a liar. you are sick. you sell greenhouse gases for a living.
you need to examine you life going in 2017. If your are rally concerned greenhouse gases are warming the planet... stop selling them.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Again, this is complete bullshit you fool. This has been debunked multiple times. Why can't you learn? Just look at the website. What's next, comic books?

And OK, let's just say those publishing climate scientists you listed say that man made global is not true. Let's see just one statement or summary or anything from those climate experts denying it.


Come one lawyer/liar, just ONE statement summary anything denying it. It should stand out like a sore thumb. We already know every expert and sci org knows it is true.

 

[jem]

1. once gain no science from the fc troll. Why can't you produce any peer reviewed science.
why do you sit here and try and distract from that fact? you clown troll who sells greenhouse gas for a living.

2. yeah all 1350 peoples have been debunked by whom? prove it you liar.
you troll lying troll.

I am sure over time a few of the papers would have to be refined but I am sure the one's concluding some or most of the climate change comes form the sun or the tides are still correct.

remember just a few years ago morons like you and the IPCC were saying it was all man made co2.

Again, this is complete bullshit you fool. This has been debunked multiple times. Why can't you learn? Just look at the website. What's next, comic books?

And OK, let's just say those publishing climate scientists you listed say that man made global is not true. Let's see just one statement or summary or anything from those climate experts denying it.


Come one lawyer/liar, just ONE statement summary anything denying it. It should stand out like a sore thumb. We already know every expert and sci org knows it is true.

 

[futurecurrents]

1. once gain no science from the fc troll. Why can't you produce any peer reviewed science.
why do you sit here and try and distract from that fact? you clown troll who sells greenhouse gas for a living.

2. yeah all 1350 peoples have been debunked by whom? prove it you liar.
you troll lying troll.

I am sure over time a few of the papers would have to be refined but I am sure the one's concluding some or most of the climate change comes form the sun or the tides are still correct.

remember just a few years ago morons like you and the IPCC were saying it was all man made co2.

Let's see just one statement or summary or anything from just ONE of those "climate experts" denying it.

We already know all the experts on earth know it's a real problem. All the climatologists. All the science orgs. Exxon. The Weather Channel.

Do you even know how insane you sound?

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem's articles that "deny global warming"....... they do nothing of the kind and may as well be recipes for making soup.

Rather than stating clearly that AGW is false, articles on that site “support arguments” and many do not even do that. Just to take one example, the most recent article (from 2013) on the site under the heading Antarctica is titled “Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica.” The abstract ends, “Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.” What does this have to do with AGW? Nothing. Magmatic activity does not explain why between 2002 and 2012 Antarctica lost 69 ± 18 gigatons (billion tons) of land ice per year. One might as well say that the hot spot under Yellowstone is responsible for global warming. Note too that the authors of this paper do not mention global warming or climate change. What right do the deniers at Pop Tech have to draw conclusions that the scientists who wrote the original articles did not?
http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/newmethodology.html




Basically, those articles do nothing like jem says they do. It is yet another case of jem (and the denial machine) intentionally misinterperating science to suit their dishonest ideological profit driven agenda. The fossil fuel companies applaud him. Even though Exxon believes man made global warming is true.


If one of those author's conclude that man made global warming is false it should be easy to quote. To find the paper's conclusions saying so. But none of them do.

 

[jem]

They were categorized as skeptical of man made co2 causing warming.
You just proved it. good work mann.

And the volcanoes under the antarctic pool have been linked to significant ice melt.

besides that is one of 1350 plus.
--

now why don't you show us say 1 peer reviewed paper which states man made co2 causes warming.

Jem's articles that "deny global warming"....... they do nothing of the kind and may as well be recipes for making soup.

Rather than stating clearly that AGW is false, articles on that site “support arguments” and many do not even do that. Just to take one example, the most recent article (from 2013) on the site under the heading Antarctica is titled “Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica.” The abstract ends, “Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.” What does this have to do with AGW? Nothing. Magmatic activity does not explain why between 2002 and 2012 Antarctica lost 69 ± 18 gigatons (billion tons) of land ice per year. One might as well say that the hot spot under Yellowstone is responsible for global warming. Note too that the authors of this paper do not mention global warming or climate change. What right do the deniers at Pop Tech have to draw conclusions that the scientists who wrote the original articles did not?
http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/newmethodology.html




Basically, those articles do nothing like jem says they do. It is yet another case of jem (and the denial machine) intentionally misinterperating science to suit their dishonest ideological profit driven agenda. The fossil fuel companies applaud him. Even though Exxon believes man made global warming is true.


If one of those author's conclude that man made global warming is false it should be easy to quote. To find the paper's conclusions saying so. But none of them do.

 

[stu]

1350 plus skeptical papers

If AGW were wrong, one would have been enough.

 

[gwb-trading]

1350 plus skeptical papers

If AGW were wrong, one would have been enough.

If AGW was right then you would be able to find one.... just one peer reviewed scientific paper explicitly stating it exists beyond all doubt.