futurecurrents: An inconvenient billionaire?

[gwb-trading]

AGW is such a universally accepted bedrock climate science that climatologists have moved way beyond stating the obvious with every paper they submit.

Jem would want every biology paper to reaffirm the validity of evolution. An absurd requirement. But jerm is not interested in the truth. He's interested in deceit that supports his lunatic fringe political views.

ABSURD. The concept that if a scientific paper does not mention AGW then they automatically support it.... is absolutely absurd. As pointed out by many scientists who complained to Cook about their papers being misclassified in his 'survey'.

 

[fhl]

As the climate models diverge further and further from climate observation, the climatologists tell us they have increased confidence in the models.

In other words, we have all these record lows because the planet is warming.

Don't question it. There is scientific agreement!

I will of course add that the same people's opinions that tell us this, are the same scientists who tell us that observed microevolution "strongly suggests" macroevolution. And they say there are thousands of peer reviewed papers and scientific agreement and the science is settled.

Not one single solitary instance of macroevolution being observed, but we are to trust these same scientists who tell us that it's cold outside because the planet is warming to also tell us that there is macroevolution because they have observed microevolution.

 

[futurecurrents]

ABSURD. The concept that if a scientific paper does not mention AGW then they automatically support it.... is absolutely absurd. As pointed out by many scientists who complained to Cook about their papers being misclassified in his 'survey'.

No it's not when one considers that 97% of all climatologists accept it as bedrock climate science. And why shouldn't they? CO2 is definately a GHG and it's levels have been raised 40% by man. It's not rocket science. More telling is how few papers deny it. Which is essentially none.

Again, all authors of papers about biology believe in evolution, but they don't evn mention it in their papers.

 

[gwb-trading]

Yes, and what makes a big difference is the time frame considered. Far more - the vast majority - believe man is responsible for essentially all of the GW over the last 40 years. As the time is stretched further back that consensus gets much thinner, as it should.

Well in this case as the earth cools globally over the next 40 years then you will have to claim that man is responsible for all of this global cooling. In this case the GW alarmists will have to make a case that CO2 actually cools the earth.

 

[gwb-trading]

No it's not when one considers that 97% of all climatologists accept it as bedrock climate science. And why shouldn't they? CO2 is definately a GHG and it's levels have been raised 40% by man. It's not rocket science. More telling is how few papers deny it. Which is essentially none.

Again, all authors of papers about biology believe in evolution, but they don't evn mention it in their papers.

How many times do we need to explain that your 97% figure is complete nonsense.

 

[futurecurrents]

As the climate models diverge further and further from climate observation, the climatologists tell us they have increased confidence in the models.

In other words, we have all these record lows because the planet is warming.

Don't question it. There is scientific agreement!

I will of course add that the same people's opinions that tell us this, are the same scientists who tell us that observed microevolution "strongly suggests" macroevolution. And they say there are thousands of peer reviewed papers and scientific agreement and the science is settled.

Not one single solitary instance of macroevolution being observed, but we are to trust these same scientists who tell us that it's cold outside because the planet is warming to also tell us that there is macroevolution because they have observed microevolution.

You could just save yourself the trouble and just come out and say that you are an ignorant fool. Of course "macro" evolution is true.

I see the trouble here though. The deniers are simply very stupid.

 

[futurecurrents]

How many times do we need to explain that your 97% figure is complete nonsense.

So here we go again. You can't even acknowledge the simplest of facts about AGW. There is literally NOTHING that will change your mind.

You are a closed minded idiot.

CO2 is a GHG and we have raised it's levels by 40%. Of course that is leading to a warmer world. Only a complete idiot like you would think otherwise.

 

[Ricter]

You could just save yourself the trouble and just come out and say that you are an ignorant fool. Of course "macro" evolution is true.

I see the trouble here though. The deniers are simply very stupid.

God said, "let all My creation under 1 mm length adhere to My laws of evolution, but let no creatures over 1 mm length adhere to it." "Why?" asked the angels. "Because I want to fake Man out," said God.

 

[jem]

1. it might if CO2 accumulation was not caused by a warming ocean or some other leading indicator. CO2 is the laggard..

you may call salby names... but we have the data and it shows co2 trails change in ocean temps by nine months to a year.

2. co2 cools... per nasa...

So here we go again. You can't even acknowledge the simplest of facts about AGW. There is literally NOTHING that will change your mind.

You are a closed minded idiot.

CO2 is a GHG and we have raised it's levels by 40%. Of course that is leading to a warmer world. Only a complete idiot like you would think otherwise.

 

[jem]

while I believe in evolution of living things... there is no science showing that life evolved from non life here on earth.

so it would be funny if random chance said... lets evolve that non life into life... but leave no evidence or path of how we did it so that some scientists in the early 21st century would still be speculating life must have been deposited on the earth from somewhere else.