A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

Corazón said:
Michael Shermer, the author of that article, has no scientific qualifications other than a PhD in experimental psychology! How he was allowed to write that crap in Scientific American is beyond me.

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

Again and again, can YOU logically or factually refute the information he is citing? A simple task for a true anti-climate change wonk such as yourself. I'll wait.
 
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...

Sorry, it's a guilty pleasure to take wonks to task and watch them bob & weave, lie and deny & BS when facts and logic they don't like rears it head.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok, so when did anybody say otherwise? You are attempting to conflate loss of rain forests, wildlife habitat and pollution with global warming. Those issues are primarily to do with over population, CO2 is not a pollutant it is essential to all plant life. If the atmospheric concentration drops below 150ppm then all plant life dies.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Taichiliberal said:
Again and again, can YOU logically or factually refute the information he is citing? A simple task for a true anti-climate change wonk such as yourself. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
I could and I have many times, sadly it is a waste of time in my experience so carry on waiting.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Micawber said:
Fuck off and leave, flat earth jerk. You should be ashamed. You are not. Yuck
Click to expand...
Sorry cunt, I will not be leaving. You're the Johnny Come Lately so why don't you fuck off? You stomped your feet a few weeks back and stated that you were going, so what stopped you?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Shape Shifter said:
Ok, so when did anybody say otherwise? You are attempting to conflate loss of rain forests, wildlife habitat and pollution with global warming. Those issues are primarily to do with over population, CO2 is not a pollutant it is essential to all plant life. If the atmospheric concentration drops below 150ppm then all plant life dies.

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

Okay, obviously you're either not paying attention, have poor reading comprehension or are just being insipidly stubborn. Let me dumb it down for you: if you eliminate the plants and vegetation in an area and replace it with concrete and industrial air and water pollutants, then you increase the level of CO2 WITHOUT the means of the counter balance of oxygen production (what plants naturally do). You also increase reflective heat into the atmosphere and ecosystem. The results are what we are now seeing in major cities India, Japan, China, and God knows how long in the USA (parts of Los Angeles a prime example). This leads to an acceleration of a global climate change that would normally take much, much longer to occur.

The flaw in your statement is trying to separate what occurs in nature and man's affect on that process. Sorry toodles, but you're just talking nonsense.
 
Shape Shifter said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Again and again, can YOU logically or factually refute the information he is citing? A simple task for a true anti-climate change wonk such as yourself. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
I could and I have many times, sadly it is a waste of time in my experience so carry on waiting.

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

Translation: you can't....stalling and bluffing non-withstanding.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, obviously you're either not paying attention, have poor reading comprehension or are just being insipidly stubborn. Let me dumb it down for you: if you eliminate the plants and vegetation in an area and replace it with concrete and industrial air and water pollutants, then you increase the level of CO2 WITHOUT the means of the counter balance of oxygen production (what plants naturally do). You also increase reflective heat into the atmosphere and ecosystem. The results are what we are now seeing in major cities India, Japan, China, and God knows how long in the USA (parts of Los Angeles a prime example). This leads to an acceleration of a global climate change that would normally take much, much longer to occur.

The flaw in your statement is trying to separate what occurs in nature and man's affect on that process. Sorry toodles, but you're just talking nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yet the Earth is greening and by a hugely significant amount. This is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2, even NASA admits that.
 
Shape Shifter said:
Yet the Earth is greening and by a hugely significant amount. This is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2, even NASA admits that.
Click to expand...

That is not a "yet," it's a side effect of global warming and a misleading talking point for science con artists like you and the total idiots who believe you.
 
Shape Shifter said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay, obviously you're either not paying attention, have poor reading comprehension or are just being insipidly stubborn. Let me dumb it down for you: if you eliminate the plants and vegetation in an area and replace it with concrete and industrial air and water pollutants, then you increase the level of CO2 WITHOUT the means of the counter balance of oxygen production (what plants naturally do). You also increase reflective heat into the atmosphere and ecosystem. The results are what we are now seeing in major cities India, Japan, China, and God knows how long in the USA (parts of Los Angeles a prime example). This leads to an acceleration of a global climate change that would normally take much, much longer to occur.

The flaw in your statement is trying to separate what occurs in nature and man's affect on that process. Sorry toodles, but you're just talking nonsense.
Click to expand...




Yet the Earth is greening and by a hugely significant amount. This is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2, even NASA admits that.
Click to expand...

As always, the devil is in the details. Pay attention:
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/rising-carbon-dioxide-greening-earth-it-s-not-all-good-news/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top