Let's check in and see how right wing paradise ISIS captured Iraq is doing
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
You don't seem to understand, people finding something acceptable for practical reasons isn't the same as endorsing it - left to themselves these Cons would ban these things, it's only because of liberals that they are in a situation where they 'accept' it.
And why would Dems like ISIS, ISIS are right wing conservatives known for their hate for gays, liberals and education. Kind of like Alabama without the sister wives.
People don’t understand that ISIS has a conservative cultural and political philosophy.
If you think about it, it's conservatives in one region at war with conservatives in another region while liberals try to get along with both the groups and usually fail.
what the hell are you talking about.
I have presented articles from agw nutters who admitted even the recent ipcc models were staring to fail. Temperatures are way below the projections... when they were made.
the ipcc's models fail and then they make new ones every few years.
you don't need bands to see the projection of have widely missed the mark.
but again you argue stupid shit.
the main point is that models are not science showing man made co2 is warming.
They models of a very complex systems.
And if you study the IPCC proejections... they are truly just models in which the assumption are placed into the models. The assumption is climate sensitivity to CO2.
So if you assume how sensitivity to CO2 you get a high temperature projection.
If you put a low sensitivity in you get lower temperature.
You need to read the footnotes to the IPCC paper to understand things.
That is not really science showing man made co2 causes warming.
its just people using models to make predictions. Which so far have done poorly.
I have presented articles from agw nutters who admitted even the recent ipcc models were staring to fail. Temperatures are way below the projections... when they were made.
the ipcc's models fail and then they make new ones every few years.
you don't need bands to see the projection of have widely missed the mark.
but again you argue stupid shit.
the main point is that models are not science showing man made co2 is warming.
They models of a very complex systems.
And if you study the IPCC proejections... they are truly just models in which the assumption are placed into the models. The assumption is climate sensitivity to CO2.
So if you assume how sensitivity to CO2 you get a high temperature projection.
If you put a low sensitivity in you get lower temperature.
You need to read the footnotes to the IPCC paper to understand things.
That is not really science showing man made co2 causes warming.
its just people using models to make predictions. Which so far have done poorly.
I am fixing the typos... because one was important. (I switched how to high.)
what the hell are you talking about?
I have presented articles from agw nutters who admitted even the recent ipcc models were staring to fail. Temperatures are way below the projections... when they were made.
the ipcc's models fail and they make new ones every few years.
you don't need bands to see the projection have widely missed the mark.
but again you argue stupid shit.
the main point is that models are not science, showing man made co2 is warming.
The models are models of very complex systems we don't fully understand.
And if you study the IPCC projections... they are simply models in which assumptions are placed into the models and projections come out the other side. The big assumption is climate sensitivity.
So if you assume high sensitivity to CO2 you get a high temperature projection.
If you put a low sensitivity into the model you get a lower temperature.
You need to read the footnotes to the IPCC paper to understand things.
That is not really science showing man made co2 causes warming.
its just people using models to make predictions. Which so far have done poorly.
what the hell are you talking about?
I have presented articles from agw nutters who admitted even the recent ipcc models were staring to fail. Temperatures are way below the projections... when they were made.
the ipcc's models fail and they make new ones every few years.
you don't need bands to see the projection have widely missed the mark.
but again you argue stupid shit.
the main point is that models are not science, showing man made co2 is warming.
The models are models of very complex systems we don't fully understand.
And if you study the IPCC projections... they are simply models in which assumptions are placed into the models and projections come out the other side. The big assumption is climate sensitivity.
So if you assume high sensitivity to CO2 you get a high temperature projection.
If you put a low sensitivity into the model you get a lower temperature.
You need to read the footnotes to the IPCC paper to understand things.
That is not really science showing man made co2 causes warming.
its just people using models to make predictions. Which so far have done poorly.
I have seen your post and which is why I pointed out how wrong they were - your articles (not peer reviewed) used average of extremes to pretend IPCC predictions failed, that's as dishonest as an oil company shill can get.
And I dont have to assume anything, I showed you a peer reviewed study that showed Co2 causes warming and yet you continue to harp the lie. Wonder why. Stick to Breitbart, leave the science for those interested in facts.
you are full of shit... you did not present a paper which showed co2 causes warming which did not rely on models.
Next your paper said the models can be trusted. That remains to be seen.
Models are not science showing CO2 causes warming.
They are just models.
Models of how the Dow will do in the next 10 years are not science showing why stock prices move.
Next your paper said the models can be trusted. That remains to be seen.
Models are not science showing CO2 causes warming.
They are just models.
Models of how the Dow will do in the next 10 years are not science showing why stock prices move.