Reply With Quote
Random, you are one disgusting individual, keeping data on all of us.
They are both for fruits like you. However, apples still do not taste like oranges. maybe in your world, but not mine.
Random, you are one disgusting individual, keeping data on all of us.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Yes the radiative properties of CO2 are merely correlation meaning causation.
That is bad science, because solar factors have better causality.Yes the radiative properties of CO2 are merely correlation meaning causation.
Well I'm not going to do the dance of stupid with you. If you think Solar is causing things, there's a Nobel prize awaiting your science that proves it. Of course, that would involve actually proving it and its pretty hard to prove something you don't even understand. Good luck!
I understand it far better than a college educated indoctrinate as yourself. CO2 simply doesn't have the warming you alarmists claim. Solar is the clear answer when considering percentages of change in any energy balance calculation. The full impact of solar changes also take decades to see.Well I'm not going to do the dance of stupid with you. If you think Solar is causing things, there's a Nobel prize awaiting your science that proves it. Of course, that would involve actually proving it and its pretty hard to prove something you don't even understand. Good luck!
I hope it isn't you who is in debt $500k in student loans, because when the sciences are better understood, your indoctrination will be obsolete.
2038 might be a bigger problem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problemI don't understand the ins and outs of coding vis a vis Y2k, but we didn't rewrite jack at the company I worked for. Zero problems. IT did camp out at the server annex that night tho.
Wow, you are working at breakneck speed. 2 LFPP in a three sentence post.
Well, when they made WC, they threw away the mold.
Some of it grew back, tho.
My theory is that people like you who claim we are not affecting our overall global climate through burning of fossil fuels think illogically. The null hypothesis would be that y'all do not think about this topic illogically. The data gathered were your own arguments, no few of which turned out to be irrational logical fallacies.
The conclusion was worth the data. Once I had enough data, I stopped bothering.
YThe fact that your arguments, and especially Darrins' mindless parroting, turned out to be consistantly flawed, does not seem to have caused you to examine your underlying assumptions.
You have only yourself to blame for that.
If so many "skeptical" lines of thinking regarding climate science are shown to be logically flawed, should one require more or less evidence from people who demonstrate such flawed thinking when they make assertions?
Are you really listening to yourself? "college .... indoctrinate"?
Science fail.
Is correlation required for causation to exist?
Post a link where I say I reject science outright. I have no problem with Science mixing vinegar with baking soda a coming up with cool inventions.
I have a problem with science lying and trying to say the earth is 4.6 billion years old when they have no clue how Stonehenge was built or how gravity works.
If your reading skills were at least up to 8th grade level you would know this as I repeat it in almost every scientific debate.
You fit right in.
and I'm not alone.
8 Simple Questions You Won't Believe Science Can't Answer
http://www.cracked.com/article_19442...answer_p2.html
It was very conventient that it hit 400 ppm at noon. Nice, tidy, precise.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,7196126.story
My theory is people like you, who lie about people like me by being intellectually dishonest with others have little or no morals.
WTF is wrong with you?
Can't you see a winning solution without lying?
Why must I repeatedly restate my position. Are you too ing stupid to understand?
I do not claim we have no effect!
You complain about strawman building to tear down, but you do it all the time asshole.
Get the facts strait about what people say, else continue to look foolish.
Yes, your intellectual dishonesty makes the rest of your words null and void.
Troll fail... funny win. Comedy relief.#4. How to Beat Solitaire
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6562244
That was easy.
You don't get to question the age of the earth. That is more than settled. A rejection of that is a rejection of more science than you can ever hope to understand, and I won't waste my time explaining to you.
Your claim is that our effect is so small as to be neglible. Vanishingly small and "no effect" are functionally synonymous, and it is more than fair.
Unless you have walked back that assertion that I don't know about?
Now, if temperature would just cooperate
Link please.
Since you log people's posts, this should be easy for you.
Link please.
ah jeez, you want me to sift through your thousands of posts on the subject? Icky. But my responsibility. I will do so when I have the time over lunch.
Alternately, WC, are you saying that our impact is not small, but rather, significant?
I have simply never claimed our activities have no effect. It is small, if any on the climate.
I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
