AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

You have yet to point to a single piece of scientific evidence while I gave you tons if it. You define projection. Look in the mirror for your politics

 

I am not responsible for your lack of curiosity or your inability to separate science from politics.

 

No. You are only responsible for your own.

 

Yes I am, but I am not tied to politics instead of science like you are.

 

You are tied to nothing but politics because you have no real science. LOL

 

Since you have no clue about the science, that is a rich statement.

 

I agree with the second half of your comment. LOL

 

Since your understanding of the science is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, I don't doubt you find assurance in more fallacy.

 

And since your allegiance is to the fossil fuel industry who will buy your conservative candidates for you I am sure there is nothing that would interfere with that loyalty.

 

Not surprise you would go off the reservation with more unsupportable and hysterical claims while still proving my point this is all about politics for you.

 

I am not responsible for your lack of curiosity or your inability to separate science from politics. LOL

 

Bwahahahahaha! After all your statements how could anyone take you seriously!

 

Are you crying? Have you completely fallen apart? LOL

 

The conspiracy was proven when their e-mails were leaked.

 

so overwhelming and yet can't be proven. I laugh out loud at such nonsense and drivel on a message board. Nice job of projecting.

- - - Updated - - -

judith Curry, and you got a cartoonist. yeah who is the denier.

 

and all of yours are meaningless to me, so what are you going to do about it. Oh wait, yeah, that's right the left wish to silence the skeptic from their position. But dude, anytime you wish to post up the experiment that can prove your position, have at it. try 25 pt font as well, I still can't hear you.

- - - Updated - - -

funny you complain about the Koch brothers and yet you throw out funding from the government like it's gold. And then you don't see the problem. too funny ted.

- - - Updated - - -

this^^^^^^^^

 

The observed facts already exceed 95% confidence intervals for all climate models based on RCP8.5 scenarios, and remained inside the 95% confidence interval for only about 25% of all climate models based on RCP4.5 scenarios.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/

The only remaining “valid” IPCC predictions are those based on RCP2.6 scenarios. Since those scenarios are based on CO2 emissions peaking between 2010 and 2020 and then declining substantially, only a few more years of flat temperature trends will make the divergence of observed fact from climate science “theory” painfully obvious, even to policy makers with no science background.

Even now a competing theory based on solar activity suggests that there will be a sustained and significant fall in global temperature from about 2017 – 2022, of about 0.3 deg C. The 2020s will be cooler than the 1980s.

 

I recall watching a movie with the star character PeeWee Herman, and dude, you sound a lot like Pee Wee. I know you are, but what am I phrases repeated over and over and over. too funny. Try some science some time and educate yourself.

 

I am the one that has posted tons of scientific evidence. YOU accept GOVERNMENT scientific evidence every day for millions of things from the water you drink, to the food you eat to the medicine you take but now all of a sudden when there is huge scientific consensus over AGW you reject it. Would you take a pill that the government said would kill you but some lone scientist said was good for you? You are being used by the fossil fuel power brokers. Eventually even they will cave to the mountain of scientific evidence. Most oil companies already have started to at least say they accept AGW. But some of you will hang on to the end. Like those who supported that cigarettes were good for you. They came around eventually and you will too.

 

whoa bubba, let's stay in the environment forum and not go off on a tangent. LOL No, you haven't provided one piece of valid experimental data that can show the dangers of 20 PPM of CO2. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but you haven't. and stop wandering into other topics in the middle of a discussion.

 

You are wrong so I will correct you. I referred you to the NASA AGW evidence page. That should keep you busy for awhile

 

why would I need to go there, you made the claim, post the link to the piece that supports the global 20 PPM of CO2 is dangerous. I'm not sifting through bullstuff. Funny, do some work you want to make a claim.

 

It is all over the website. In big giant letters for anyone to see. With scientific references at the bottom. But keep your head in the sand

 

then it shouldn't take much for you to post the link.

 

You must post where you come up with the 20 PPM number