NASA: direct proof of man caused GW

Dutch Uncle said:
Some fucking assholes believe that shit, but NASA speaks the truth...and anyone who disagrees should prove why:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
Click to expand...

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
The burden of proof is on YOU and on NASA.
Copying charts of random numbers is not going to cut it. Random numbers are not data.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. Denial of statistical mathematics.
 
ExpressLane said:
Fauci IS SCIENCE so NASA can't be speaking for Science.
Click to expand...

Science is not a person.
Science is not a government agency.
Science is not a university, society, academy, scientist or any group of scientists. Science isn't even people at all. There is no voting bloc. It does not use consensus. Nobody speaks for science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less.

Uncle continues to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Uncle continues to deny statistical mathematics and probability mathematics.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Some fucking assholes believe that shit, but NASA speaks the truth...and anyone who disagrees should prove why:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
Click to expand...

A graph of the last million or so years and CO2 levels where the last what 100 years (1/100th of 1% or .0001) shows a spike in the level? How utterly meaningless. How many times in the last million years did CO2 spike for a short period then fall? Yep, nobody knows because the data is never going to be that precise.

So, the graph is meaningless because the compared timeframe to the overall graph is so miniscule as to be so.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A graph of the last million or so years and CO2 levels where the last what 100 years (1/100th of 1% or .0001) shows a spike in the level? How utterly meaningless. How many times in the last million years did CO2 spike for a short period then fall? Yep, nobody knows because the data is never going to be that precise.

So, the graph is meaningless because the compared timeframe to the overall graph is so miniscule as to be so.
Click to expand...

Don't believe. You're free to believe metal boats float by magic too.
 
Nobody serious argues this anymore. It's settled. Only crackpots with no credentials do.
It's been that way for 10 years. In the exact field it has been settled for 20 years.
 
Micawber said:
Nobody serious argues this anymore. It's settled. Only crackpots with no credentials do.
It's been that way for 10 years. In the exact field it has been settled for 20 years.
Click to expand...

You grew up watching Bill Nye on Saturday mornings, huh?
 
evince said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nasa-study/
Click to expand...

In a first-of-its-kind study, NASA has calculated the individual driving forces of recent climate change through direct satellite observations. And consistent with what climate models have shown for decades, greenhouse gases and suspended pollution particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols, from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the lion's share of modern warming.




Still the Republican Party lies about this to lick corporate oil ass for cash
 
So what’s next for cons?


What science will they spew hate on now to lick the ass of corporations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top