A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

Covfefe said:
Nope, I choose when to ignore you, the Cypress stuff is one of those time Gladys.
Click to expand...
Ok well I am banning you from now on, you have become very bitter and twisted in your dotage. As for Crypiss, he is big enough to fight his own battles, he doesn't need his 'virtual mummy' to do it for him.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
Boston gets walloped with record-breaking cold not seen since 1901.

Boston broke a 116-year-old record Saturday morning when the temperature dropped to 23 degrees, according to the National Weather Service. The previous record low for November 11 was set at 24 degrees in 1901.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/b...record-breaking-cold-not-seen-since-1901/amp/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I know. I was talking with my family today. 80 Deg in PR! HA!
 
Sailor said:
I know. I was talking with my family today. 80 Deg in PR! HA!
Click to expand...
Ah yes Puerto Rico, the usual suspects were full of how bad Trump was a while back, now nothing! It justs goes to show how fickle and inconsequential is most of the commentary on here.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
I can't help thinking after watching Louis Theroux tackling the Church of Scientology that much of the 'debate' on here about AGW is little more than squirrel busting.


Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
Corazon seems to be on a serious climate change denier wonk bent....pity they can't directly toe to toe hold their own with valid peer reviewed research that just faults their denial. Oh, and to date I have yet to hear the rationale behind the insanity of denying the effect of a century plus global deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollutants on the natural climate change of the earth.

And the beat goes on.
Click to expand...

What does the chronology of the posts have to say on the matter? I refer you to the quote by the late great Robert Oppenheimer.


There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change one iota of what I stated, or the question I put forth or the peer reviewed evidence that contradicts you.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
 
Taichiliberal said:
Which doesn't change one iota of what I stated, or the question I put forth or the peer reviewed evidence that contradicts you.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
Click to expand...

Ok so now you've exhausted the talking points, how about you think for yourself? Which of the four RCP scenarios outlined in IPCC AR5 do you subscribe to, can you try to be specific? I happen to think that Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 is the most likely, what say you?


See post 91 for more info.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Which doesn't change one iota of what I stated, or the question I put forth or the peer reviewed evidence that contradicts you.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
Click to expand...

Forget it, the scenario is always the same, he'll either attack any source you employ, or "rebutal" with any argument, op-ed, blog or study that he found on some Flat Earther website and demand you to discredit it, it's is always the same, it is like exchanging with a cork
 
archives said:
Forget it, the scenario is always the same, he'll either attack any source you employ, or "rebutal" with any argument, op-ed, blog or study that he found on some Flat Earther website and demand you to discredit it, it's is always the same, it is like exchanging with a cork
Click to expand...
Well I asked you which of the four RCP scenarios outlined in the IPCC AR5 document you favoured, but you seem totally incapable of answering. I am guessing because you're too stupid to be honest, surprise me.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
I can certainly rate nasty cunts and you're in the top five!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So what? You have no evidence to undercut climate science and you aren't a scientists at all. You can dredge up all the octogenarian physicists you want. The science is not changing unless the scientists who actually do the work say so, and that will only happen
if the oil lobby that brainwashed you stops choking the earth to death.
 
Micawber said:
So what? You have no evidence to undercut climate science and you aren't a scientists at all. You can dredge up all the octogenarian physicists you want. The science is not changing unless the scientists who actually do the work say so, and that will only happen
if the oil lobby that brainwashed you stops choking the earth to death.
Click to expand...
This incoherent rubbish is worthy of Desh, I have now decided that anybody unwilling to answer post 91 is not worth the tine of day. So spare me anymore of your mitherings.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
This incoherent rubbish is worthy of Desh, I have now decided that anybody unwilling to answer post 91 is not worth the tine of day. So spare me anymore of your mitherings.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If I had a dime for every instance you claimed you had no time for people who are more intelligent than you on this board, each of whom were schooling you to your rapt attention 20 minutes later, I could stack them to the ionosphere you ignorant piece of shit.
 
Corazón said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post

Which doesn't change one iota of what I stated, or the question I put forth or the peer reviewed evidence that contradicts you.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ics-are-wrong/
Click to expand...

Ok so now you've exhausted the talking points, how about you think for yourself? Which of the four RCP scenarios outlined in IPCC AR5 do you subscribe to, can you try to be specific? I happen to think that Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 is the most likely, what say you?


See post 91 for more info.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1. You first sentence tells me that you cannot point for point logically or factually disprove the content of the links.

2. If you had been paying attention to the chronology of the posts, I had put forth (twice) the following: To date, no one can logically, rationally or factually tell me that the consistent and increasing deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the environment has only a negligible effect on the global environment/ecology.

Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top