i believe in AGW!

T

tsuke

New member
So ive recently had a change of heart after reading some articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

This one says there will be no ice in the arctic ocean by 2013! No ice in the arctic!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/u...wipe-out-entire-nations-by-2000-15-years-ago/

This one says entire nations will be wiped of the map by the year 2000! I wouldnt want to be living in those nations.

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?_r=0

this one says there will be an ice age by the year 2000!

Clearly global warmists have made many predictions and they all turned out to be true. We have no choice but to believe it is settled science.
 
Does everything you post have to have this kind of sarcastic tone?

AGW is unproven science, and always will be. I think the left is making a mistake by focusing on it.

That said, the Trump admin's stance on the environment should freak everyone out. Take AGW off the table, and there is still a lot to be said for clean air, clean water and protecting habitat.

Trump is poised to give polluters free reign again, and take us back decades on environmental policy. I don't understand why more on the right don't care about basic protections and keeping a minimal standard for maintaining our planet.
 
Thing1 said:
Does everything you post have to have this kind of sarcastic tone?

AGW is unproven science, and always will be. I think the left is making a mistake by focusing on it.

That said, the Trump admin's stance on the environment should freak everyone out. Take AGW off the table, and there is still a lot to be said for clean air, clean water and protecting habitat.

Trump is poised to give polluters free reign again, and take us back decades on environmental policy. I don't understand why more on the right don't care about basic protections and keeping a minimal standard for maintaining our planet.
Click to expand...

ITS SETTLED SCIENCE BROTHER THING!!!! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY OTHERWISE. I WILL REPORT YOU TO BILL NYE!
 
tsuke said:
So ive recently had a change of heart after reading some articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

This one says there will be no ice in the arctic ocean by 2013! No ice in the arctic!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/u...wipe-out-entire-nations-by-2000-15-years-ago/

This one says entire nations will be wiped of the map by the year 2000! I wouldnt want to be living in those nations.

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?_r=0

this one says there will be an ice age by the year 2000!

Clearly global warmists have made many predictions and they all turned out to be true. We have no choice but to believe it is settled science.
Click to expand...

Milagro has cited several references that confirm AGW. Ask him about C/Co predicting a Delta T from 1.5-3.0 or so. That Delta T ain't from volcanoes, pal.
 
Thing1 said:
Does everything you post have to have this kind of sarcastic tone?

AGW is unproven science, and always will be. I think the left is making a mistake by focusing on it.

That said, the Trump admin's stance on the environment should freak everyone out. Take AGW off the table, and there is still a lot to be said for clean air, clean water and protecting habitat.

Trump is poised to give polluters free reign again, and take us back decades on environmental policy. I don't understand why more on the right don't care about basic protections and keeping a minimal standard for maintaining our planet.
Click to expand...

I love dirty water and air. HAIL TRUMP
 
domer76 said:
Milagro has cited several references that confirm AGW. Ask him about C/Co predicting a Delta T from 1.5-3.0 or so. That Delta T ain't from volcanoes, pal.
Click to expand...

There you go lying again. I can't be bothered writing it all out again so here's Wiki!!

"CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
There you go lying again. I can't be bothered writing it all out again so here's Wiki!!

"CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

AGW is AGW, pal, no matter how you want to predict it. C/Co = 2 ain't from volcanoes.

You like that wiki reference? Good. From the same:

"The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C"

And don't forget this from your same citation:

"feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback"

Dontcha just love when your own citations shit backwards on you?

lol
 
Milagro said:
There you go lying again. I can't be bothered writing it all out again so here's Wiki!!

"CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Publish some science instead of sniping from no science land.:rolleyes:
 
Micawber said:
Publish some science instead of sniping from no science land.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, I publish science all the time? What you really mean is, why don't I publish science that chimes with your world view.

Sent from iPhone 25S turbo
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
Does everything you post have to have this kind of sarcastic tone?

AGW is unproven science, and always will be. I think the left is making a mistake by focusing on it.

That said, the Trump admin's stance on the environment should freak everyone out. Take AGW off the table, and there is still a lot to be said for clean air, clean water and protecting habitat.

Trump is poised to give polluters free reign again, and take us back decades on environmental policy. I don't understand why more on the right don't care about basic protections and keeping a minimal standard for maintaining our planet.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking retarded?
 
Thing1 said:
Care to elaborate?

I mean, on another thread, you're saying that you & I made our minds up in October, so apparently everyone else did too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll elaborate. Science is a process. 'Unproven Science' has nothing to do with science.

And in the other thread...take me on there if you have such an issue with what I posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top