Climate predictions may be wrong, new study finds

Incapable along with infantile ranting such as this. You really should quit while you are so far behind.

 

That's a logical fallacy. LOL

 

Thanks again for proving my point.

 

except that it isn't. DOH!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

based on what?

I've been waiting for that. Do you have a link to that?

- - - Updated - - -

no, you are the one wearing tin foil to protect against CO2 cause you fear it. ewwwwwwwwww, watch out!

 

NASA AGW consensus page. Then flip over to the evidence page and see how settled it is. DOH!!!!

 

dude, I already told you pull a piece out that you believe covers your story. To date, you have zip. So there must not be any material there. You made the point present your piece of the evidence. Not a website.

 

What EXACTLY would you like? Would you like 4 separate peer reviewed studies that show 97% of climatologists believe in AGW? Would you like numerous peer reviewed evidence of AGW? Would you like to see the official policy statement of every major science organization in support of AGW?

Its all right there. What do you disagree with? LOL

 

Using logical fallacies as proof.

 

Scientific peer reviewed evidence is a logical fallacy? Hilarious!

 

You seem to be under the impression that a paper passing peer review is somehow fact. Nothing could be further from the truth and most peer reviewed papers do not stand the test of time. Not that you would know or understand.

 

You seem to think that your opinion on the subject carries any weight. It does not. It is simply your opinion. LOL

 

I stated fact, not that you could discern it.

 

Thank you for your opinions about facts. LOL

 

If things heated up before without humans that should say it all. The rich are just looking for another way to tax people with carbon tax and kill off the people to reduce the surplus pop.

 

To you, known and well understood facts are opinion.

 

No just your claims are. LOL

 

Not surprised you don't know much about peer review other than using it in a logical fallacy.

 

Its much better to have papers that are not peer reviewed. We should just TRUST the researcher. LOL

 

Still think just because a paper is peer reviewed that it is 100% fact?

 

Do you still not understand that science NEVER determines whether something is 100% fact?

 

Yet here you are, pretending like it does.

 

You provide a quote where I said AGW or any other scientific theory was a 100% fact.

You can't. Now you are simply lying.....and that is just sad

 

You asked.

 

I do not see anything about 100% fact anywhere. You have shown yourself as a liar. Hilarious.

 

They believe if you tell a big enough lie and repeat long enough it magically becomes 'truth.' This is usually accompanied by graphs and charts based on flawed climate modeling. They live in an echo chamber and think everyone who doesn't believe in the same 'echo' is a 'denier.'