Yes, it was not the science community as a whole. It was only the AGW nutters - funded with over $4 Billion in government grants each year to promote a politically driven climate change agenda so Al Gore and his cronies could get rich.
What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Yes, it was not the science community as a whole. It was only the AGW nutters - funded with over $4 Billion in government grants each year to promote a politically driven climate change agenda so Al Gore and his cronies could get rich.
you two lefties are crazy loons now.
the pause in the chart does not mean there is no more warming.
the pause in the chart shows your models can not separate out a co2 signal from the natural variability.
in short you have no science showing warming is caused by man made co2 on earth.
Why is that...
Its because greenhouse gases act as a thermostat on natural forcings.
Its not a linear relationship.
If you want to take it back to trading fc..
Its like you programmed your neural net on the back data... but you lose money on real time data going forward.
Why? you have found no real signal therefore your model is shit.
the pause in the chart does not mean there is no more warming.
the pause in the chart shows your models can not separate out a co2 signal from the natural variability.
in short you have no science showing warming is caused by man made co2 on earth.
Why is that...
Its because greenhouse gases act as a thermostat on natural forcings.
Its not a linear relationship.
If you want to take it back to trading fc..
Its like you programmed your neural net on the back data... but you lose money on real time data going forward.
Why? you have found no real signal therefore your model is shit.
So you're saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas then. You're wrong.
But you are right that CO2 and air temps are not bound together in a perfect linear relationship. Duh. We have the oceans and solar.
However the earth temp as a whole does approach the linear relationship with CO2.
Are you intentionally stupid? You repeatedly demonstrate a complete inability to see truth that's right in front of you. What a dolt you are.
Check out this chart and then tell me there no good relationship between CO2 and temps dipshit moron fuckhead. Remember...this is a good chart.
It's not tactics it's truth. The vast majority of science in the seventies predicted global warming and as far as the Arctic ice disappearing in ten years, it was one guy that said it, not the ice scientists as whole. Oh deluded one. But that's what happens when you get your "science" from right wing sources.
Something IS pathetic here and it's you moron deniers who refuse to believe what virtually every climate scientist in the world and common sense says.
greenhouse gases.. acts as thermostats... that is what nasa says... I gave you the links to NASA's website.. they showed you the science.
you chart must show co2 trailing warming... if it does not... it is not accurate data.
you chart must show co2 trailing warming... if it does not... it is not accurate data.
Quote from futurecurrents:
So you're saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas then. You're wrong.
But you are right that CO2 and air temps are not bound together in a perfect linear relationship. Duh. We have the oceans and solar.
However the earth temp as a whole does approach the linear relationship with CO2.
Are you intentionally stupid? You repeatedly demonstrate a complete inability to see truth that's right in front of you. What a dolt you are.
Check out this chart and then tell me there no good relationship between CO2 and temps dipshit moron fuckhead. Remember...this is a good chart.
Oh yeah.
What a deluded moron.
Why do you think you have been deluded? It's because of the propaganda campaign of the fossil fuel related interests.
But you are a good sheep. bah bah bah