Global warming

[Sportello]

A five year old editorial written by Christopher Booker, who claims asbestos is the same as talcum powder, and second hand smoke is just fine?

This is what you come up with?

How about real science, instead of a deniers 5 year old editorial?

You guys are funny, in a sad sort of way.

 

[realbrown1]

See here: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nds-and-kiribati-before-and-after-interactive

And here:

OMG.

I guess storms never happened until Al Gore invented global warming.

 

[av8torntn]

A five year old editorial written by Christopher Booker, who claims asbestos is the same as talcum powder, and second hand smoke is just fine?

This is what you come up with?

How about real science, instead of a deniers 5 year old editorial?

You guys are funny, in a sad sort of way.

Sad. Guess you can't dispute the conclusion then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner

 

[Sportello]

Sad. Guess you can't dispute the conclusion then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner

How about I hit your weak rebuttal with this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

 

[Sportello]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

[av8torntn]

How about I hit your weak rebuttal with this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

You post a link from a website started by a cartoonists with no scientific training who seems to enjoy dressing like a Nazi. If you think about it you'd see that it's fitting for the global warming crowd.

Sad and a little funny.

 

[Sportello]

Post some real science.

Bet you can't.

 

[av8torntn]

Post some real science.

Bet you can't.

Read this thread. I've linked to published,peer reviewed articles. Some people call that "real science".

Of course, you're free to get your info from a climate change website founded by a cartoonist with no scientific background. It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

 

[bottomups]

Keep out the ocean?

From what, rising oceans?

Wasn't that suppose to have already HAPPENED?

Isn't that why Noah built his ark?

 

[MrFedEx]

Read this thread. I've linked to published,peer reviewed articles. Some people call that "real science".

Of course, you're free to get your info from a climate change website founded by a cartoonist with no scientific background. It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

You're an ignoramus. The only sources you cite are the usual suspects. Peers reviewing peers who are also morons doesn't equal good science.

 

[av8torntn]

You're an ignoramus. The only sources you cite are the usual suspects. Peers reviewing peers who are also morons doesn't equal good science.

As has become normal you can do little more than resort to name calling.

 

[realbrown1]

Isn't that why Noah built his ark?

I think that was for heavy rainfall.

 

[MAKAVELI]

http://news.yahoo.com/97-percent-scientific-consensus-climate-change-wrong-much-211621750.html
The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Wrong—It’s Even Higher

 

[BrownArmy]

As has become normal you can do little more than resort to name calling.

Which you do regularly, calling liberals 'mentally deficient', ad nauseum.

Please do, give us some 'peer-reviewed' 'scientific' studies that aren't funded by either the oil industry, the Koch brothers, on and on...give us some studies that deny global warming/climate change by any entity that isn't getting funded by an oil/gas industry or a related subsidiary.

I'm breathless with anticipation.

(I'm not sure y'all understand what 'science' means).

 

[tourists24]

Isn't that why Noah built his ark?

That was from the first man made global warming crisis.... nature took care of it. Restart.... No?

 

[av8torntn]

Which you do regularly, calling liberals 'mentally deficient', ad nauseum.

When? I think you are making that up.

If funding is your concern then you should not post a link to something that supports the global warming paranoia that uses any information funded by any government.

 

[Sportello]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC#.VZ_Mdvmq3T5

 

[Sportello]

When? I think you are making that up.

If funding is your concern then you should not post a link to something that supports the global warming paranoia that uses any information funded by any government.

Just what sort of 'science' would be acceptable to you if government funded science is not? How about corporate funded science?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

[BrownArmy]

When? I think you are making that up.

If funding is your concern then you should not post a link to something that supports the global warming paranoia that uses any information funded by any government.

My apologies...I mixed you up with O.U.T.

 

[av8torntn]

Just what sort of 'science' would be acceptable to you if government funded science is not? How about corporate funded science?

You're confused. I'm not the one trying to shut down science by attacking the funding source. I'll leave that to the nazi impersonater at skeptical science. I simply asked if you would apply the same standard to yourselves that you demand of others and judging your reaction I am guessing that I can put you in the no colum.