A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I do love James Delinpole he really knows how to piss off Greenies.
[h=1]An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…[/h]
[h=1]An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…[/h]
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As always, the devil is in the details:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-not-be-a-good-thing/?utm_term=.add3a2218252
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That article is nearly three years old and it was bullshit even back then.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Oh no. More vegetation. More food. More CO2 absorption. More O2 produced. The sky is falling! Doomsday scenario!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You have to understand that the illiberal Left consider CO2 to be evil and a pollutant. The fact that life would cease to exist if the CO2 atmospheric concentration fell below 150ppm is far too complex for their minds to encompass.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Newsflash.....age does not automatically negate FACTS. And since you cannot logically or factually disprove the content of the link, your retort means nothing.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Science tells me that old fruit, you need to crack open a book! Start by reading about photosynthesis and basic biology.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As always, you have nothing to say yet talk loud.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You mean the science that you agree with, bunky? Yeah, that's the problem with you denial types...anything that doesn't jibe with your belief system is avoided like the plague. Case in point, the two common sense points I made earlier that you cannot logically or factually dispute....along with my response to your silly assertion that age dictates the validity of any factual information.
Carry on.cancel2 2022
Canceled
So you do refuse to accept that all plant life would die without a minimum level of CO2? Simple enough question, if you wish to debunk it then be my guest.You mean the science that you agree with, bunky? Yeah, that's the problem with you denial types...anything that doesn't jibe with your belief system is avoided like the plague. Case in point, the two common sense points I made earlier that you cannot logically or factually dispute....along with my response to your silly assertion that age dictates the validity of any factual information.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And faced with the previous challenges that you don't have the intellectual courage to concede to, you do the usual BS by trying to detour with a question that is nowhere near related to anything I stated or linked. The chronology of the posts bears me out on this. C'mon junior...you've got to come up something stronger than this!
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Ive seen this over and over and over. Apocalyptic catastrophic alarmists call realists 'science deniers, flat earthers' ,etc. yet they don't even have an understanding of 9th grade General Science class.
They believe co2 is some kind of poison because the EPA politically and erroneously classified it as a pollutant.
That's like the NIH coming out stating fresh fruits and vegetables are carcinogenic.
Which is a damn good reason to disband the EPA.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Do not get your panties in a wad Taichump. Just offer your body as fertilizer, dead or alive will do.
The Internet. If you backtrack his sources they nearly all fall on climate deniers websites.
He, and the others, use their basic interest in some field, master the right semantics, and pound some study they've found challenging anyone to attack their explanations. If you provide anything they immediately start with the personal crapola and repeatingly demand you negate that specific research they've copied and pasted
Go to NASA's website on "climate change," they provide the footnotes and data, none of which these two will even recognize any of it since it isn"t within the scope of the study thier pounding
They come on with the same scenario over and over
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I don't consider you to be a worthy adversary, you've proved that your understanding of the principles involved are tenuous at best. Slightly more than Desh perhaps but not by much. Here is a graph to help clarify matters, hope it helps.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I don't consider you to be a worthy adversary, you've proved that your understanding of the principles involved are tenuous at best. Slightly more than Desh perhaps but not by much. Here is a graph to help clarify matters, hope it helps.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Didn't I note "use their basic interest in some field, master the right semantics, and pound some study they've found challenging anyone to attack their explanations. If you provide anything they immediately start with the personal crapola and repeatingly demand you negate that specific research they've copied and pasted?"
Love it when one validates your point, thanks