Global warming scepticism

and some more facts thanks you tube:
[video=youtube;oN_oynx1D8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w[/video]

 

How many times have you been told all skeptical scientists accept the hypothesis but just disagree on the methods, projections, and politicization of science?

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, so his paper that equates the hiatus not out of bounds of the models means he denies the hiatus. What a hoot.

- - - Updated - - -

Wash, rinse, repeat. Pretty hilarious.

 

dude funny stuff again. still not facts in evidence. sorry, but they're not. first:
no one is arguing that there isn't almost 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, what is being argued what CO2 it is natural or manmade. Unless you can highlight what you posted is evidence of man's CO2 footprint go for it. But fail;

Second: you first have to prove that CO2 can do what the rest of the article says and that is the evidence I've been looking for for almost two years now that no one can put up. In fact, I put the test that blows your stuff away right here.
[video=youtube;vFajQNg9yUY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFajQNg9yUY[/video]

what's the temperature in the control bottle 79 what's the temperature in the CO2 bottle 79. too funny dude.

at 0:39 with the light still on the bottles stop the video and look both bottles read 79. dude you have nothing. there is more evidence that adding CO2 doesn't increase temps. It's an experiment that proves my point. Makes a win for me.

 

Pielke was chased out of writing about the stastics of global warming due to the dems climate jihad.

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

 

funny.

 

from piekle's testimony, it's clear that he accepts agw

he even says his points are consistent with the ipcc, united states global change research program and the broader peer-reviewed literature

the article i posted shows that warming is from manmade co2 emissions

 

what time on the video?

All he said were his points were consistent with the IPCC report. Do you know what that means, it means he is articulating his facts, if you listen, are against the document.

 

what a joke, you didn't watch the video did you?

 

funny you need to listen to his report. Me thinks you are clueless. you should first understand what people say.

His seven points are completely different than anything you wish to argue.

 

i am and the funny part is that you obviously didn't

 

what are his seven points? Do they agree with the IPCC report? again, you need to learn how to comprehend what is stated.

BTW, how'd you like the experiment I posted. funny stuff eh?

 

Yet he was chased out of this by the alarmists because he provided some inconvenient facts. That is the state of affairs during this climate hysteria and it isn't any better anywhere else in this highly politicized atmosphere.

 

https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2015_Geochron.pdf

 

watch the video, his points are all there and this is there, too

pielke does believe that climate is changing due to human influences

just after the 3:00 minute mark:

"Humans do influence the climate system in profound ways; including through the emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels…"


"It is true that researchers have detected and in some cases attributed a human influence in other measures of climate extremes beyond those discussed in this testimony, including surface temperatures (heat waves) and in some measures of precipitation."

 

All he has to hear is that Pielke beleives man influences the climate so he doesn't have to listen to or understand any other points. Of course that puts him in a bind because all of the skeptical scientists believe man contributes but just don't agree on all the other nonsense. So basically he says he believes scientists, but only those parts he wants to hear.

 

agreed

 

you're wrong, i listened to them and understand them

my point is that you're wrong about agw

 

and yet like every scientist on the planet you can't prove its affect.

 

i've been easily demonstrating that you're wrong, over and over

[video=youtube;BjhrwA9f4G8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjhrwA9f4G8[/video]

 

So, explain what you understand, in your own words.

 

i have, over and over

 

By saying, "I have, over and over." Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

 

let's see you explain why pielke said this:

"Humans do influence the climate system in profound ways; including through the emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels…"


"It is true that researchers have detected and in some cases attributed a human influence in other measures of climate extremes beyond those discussed in this testimony, including surface temperatures (heat waves) and in some measures of precipitation."

 

So, can't explain what you understand eh? Figured.

 

i understand that pielke knows agw is real and a big problem