EPA chief admits climate change is real — but ‘the real issue is how much we contribu

USFREEDOM911 said:
But where did all that CO2 come from and where did it go?
Since plant life was very abundant, why are you bringing up famine and disease?

But since it's apparent that you're basing all your complaints on SPECULATION, ASSUMPTIONS, ASSERTIONS, and CONJECTURE; it basically boils down that you have nothing definitive and are just scard.

As to you feeling like your talking to a 4 year old, then maybe you should stop talking to yourself. :D
Click to expand...

(laughing)

Sonny, you're out of your league here. Just keep telling yourself CO2 is nothing more than a "trace plant food". Anything more will strain your peabrain.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
From your previous post it is now very clear that All of your complaining, regarding global warming climate control; is all based on maybe's and could be's.

:good4u:
Click to expand...

Complaing? Hilarious!

Buy a clue, chump. All projections are based on models. Even you butt buddy's here.

Regardless of what your tiny little mind may think, I haven't taken a position on AGW. I'm merely calling your fellow keister cowboy on his self-agrandizing bullshit.
 
Milagro said:
Holy fuck you are truly incorrigible. I correct you on an erroneous fact and you call that a diversion. Simple enough really, stop spouting shit and you won't get called out.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

Now - now - now; you really must allow domer to just make up his facts, as he goes along.
Otherwise the house of cards he has built, will just collapse upon itself.

:evilnod:
 
domer76 said:
Complaing? Hilarious!

Buy a clue, chump. All projections are based on models. Even you butt buddy's here.

Regardless of what your tiny little mind may think, I haven't taken a position on AGW. I'm merely calling your fellow keister cowboy on his self-agrandizing bullshit.
Click to expand...


OH; well in that case, my Lego model shows that the earth is going to cool. :p
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where did I say anything close to what you're suggesting? :D
Click to expand...

(laughing)

Oh, that's right. You're the "big plants, big bugs" moron. The one that's too stupid to figure out that the difference between billions of years ago and now just might be 7-8 billion people.

Go home, Rufus. You don't know the difference between delta T and Delta Dawn.
 
Last edited:
Well,they are only about 25 years behind now. Some of these dumb dumbs still think the human eye is a good example of irreducible complexity.
 
Darth Omar said:
Actually, the sun is likely the main driver in climate activity.

How many SUV's would fit inside the sun lol?
Click to expand...


LOL. That zombie was abandoned over a decade ago. But the ignorant and disingenuous persist.

http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm#L_M058


A few scientists persevered in arguing that much smaller solar changes (which they thought they detected in the satellite record) had driven the extraordinary warming since the 1970s. But even among these outlying groups, leaders admitted that in the future,"solar forcing could be significant, but not dominant." Nevertheless the argument that solar activity was the true cause of global warming continued to circulate. It was one example of the indestructible "zombie" theories that plagued discussions. As it happened, solar activity sank to historic lows after 2005. Some prominent figures among the opposition to regulating greenhouse gases publicly predicted rapid global cooling. When temperatures climbed to a new record in 2014 (and a higher record in 2015, and higher still in 2016) while solar activity remained unusually low, only the ignorant or disingenuous could persist in denying that greenhouse gases were the only plausible cause.(58*)


The import of the claim that solar variations influenced climate was now reversed. Critics had used the claim to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. But what if the planet really did react with extreme sensitivity to almost imperceptible changes in the radiation arriving from the Sun? The planet would surely be similarly sensitive to greenhouse gas interference with the radiation once it entered the atmosphere. Some of the scientists who reported evidence of past connections between solar and climate changes warned explicitly that their data did not show that the current global warming was natural — it only showed the extreme sensitivity of the climate system to small perturbations. Back in 1994 a U.S. National Academy of Sciences panel had estimated that if solar radiation were to weaken as much as it had during the 17th-century Maunder Minimum, the entire effect would be offset by another two decades of accumulation of greenhouse gases. A 2010 study reported that with the growing rate of emissions, by the late 21st century a Maunder-Minimum solar effect would be offset in a single decade. As one expert explained, the Little Ice Age "was a mere 'blip' compared with expected future climatic change."
 
Milagro said:
In 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/...sition-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.JQ5abWjk.dpbs

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

During the first 3 months of 2017, over 150 papers have already been published in scientific journals that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob.

The 2017 publication rate (~50 scientific papers per month) is slightly ahead of last year’s pace. That’s because in 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging the “consensus” claim that weather and climate changes are significantly determined by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

These 150 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate, and that natural factors — the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations (NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO), cloud and aerosol albedo variations — have exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/03/...upport-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
domer76 said:
(laughing)

Oh, that's right. You're the "big plants, big bugs" moron. The one that's too stupid to figure out that the difference between billions of years ago and now just might be 7-8 billion people.

Go home, Rufus. You don't know the difference between delta T and Delta Dawn.
Click to expand...

So let me understand what you're doing here.

1 - you make a accusation
2 - you are then asked to back it up
3 - you scream and run to your safe place

:good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So let me understand what you're doing here.

1 - you make a accusation
2 - you are then asked to back it up
3 - you scream and run to your safe place

:good4u:
Click to expand...

Big plants and big bugs, huh? Obviously, that's the extent of your analytical capabilities. You just forgot PEOPLE!

Poor little sciencetard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top