Think of all the brilliant scientists whos lives have been destroyed. Their excellent work was discredited by this corrupt system of science. They deserve their day in court plus financial restitution.
When queried about some questionable data, presented as facts, the IPCC quoted WIKI Using the old disproved graphs...LOL
The house of cards is crumbling, Only intervention by governments bent on World Control can save it now. Write your elected officials. Vote like your life depended on it...it does.
Lots of Tap Dancing now. Coldest winter for quite some time. Enjoy this COLD winter. Way too much Snow and Cold, poor Polar Bears can't even find a Seal.
THIS is 'Climate Change' You can believe in: tinyurl com/yzvtptl La Brea California. Back when Science was a respected, peer reviewed, process. Totally unlike today's Corruption infested, Greed driven 'Tricks' used for achieving a 'Goal'... Wealth and Power.
Take note of the disproportionate number of 'Dire Wolves' . Endlessly tried the same tactics and expected different results. Extinction...was imminent...AGW 'Believers'?
Smarter 'Timber Wolf', Refused to 'Believe' in 'Tar Walking'.
Not sure if the AGW worshipers only Wiki (notably biased) and watch vids, If that is the case, YT has a six part series on CLOUDS. based on Physicist Svensmark and his Physicist team's studies. If preference is to actually read about opposing theory, check out this easy reader for starters. The rest is up to you. tinyurl com/yjvrd5 Junk Science.
Google "climate during the carboniferous period". There was a time when Earth's temperatures were similar to what they are now, with a CO2 level far above what we have today.
@MihaZ If you had bothered to Google what I said to in my previous post, you would know that's exactly the point I was trying to make. In fact, CO2 has very little impact on "global warming".
Sorry, I don't ''google'' stuff, I read science journals. There is no correlation between CO2 anad temperatures, and no serious scientist will claim that. However, there is a very strong correlation between CO2, solar activity, and temperature. The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century, where have you been? Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2.
I would like to know which ',time'' you are referring too, has our planet is old, and that lots of things happened! But since you didn't mention it in the first place, I doubt you ever read any papers written by a paleoclimatologist.
@MihaZ Why are you arguing with me when we're on the same side here? And what I referenced before IS a scientific writing. And I do read scientific journals, I don't get all my info from Google.
During the carboniferous and ordovician periods, CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today, yet the temperature was about the same as it is today.
It's true that CO2 level was much greater, but as I stated earlier, it's not the only factor. The solar energy output was about 4,3 % less than it is today, which would be enough to begin an Ice Age. And yet, temperatures were pretty high. CO2 balanced the climate. How do we know that? As you know, the late Ordovician was an Ice Age. How could the earth have lost most of its CO2 so quickly?
We have an agreement there MeanGene79 =). ''Beleivers'' and ''Deniers'' both have the wrong approach imo. But extremes sell well in the media. Hardly any way around it sadly. I prefer rational debate based on empirical evidence. And I'm always glad to read competent skeptics like Shaviv, Svensmark, Friis-C and Lindzen. It's very healthy to have scientists publish conclusions based on observations to explain a phenomenon - climate for instance - until we find a consistent model.
CO2 dropped in the bottom of the oceans through a simple chemical reaction, becoming calcium or magnesium carbonate and is eventually turned into sediments. That is the basic cycle of carbon lol. Data confirms that, I can PM you the articles. As for the ice age, in addition to that, the continents gathered to the south, and the orbit of our planet might have had a role in the cause of the Ice Age. Co2 levels were preventing an Ice Age, and when it dropped, it happened.
This specific period was studied alot, and it shows the intricate relation between solar output, CO2 and temperatures. Climate is a combination of factors. And lately, the solar activity has remained constant, while CO2 levels inreased, so did the temperatures. How can it be less obvious lol? Read some more about paleoclimatology, it's quite interesting, and quite accessible online.
Agreed. Not only is CO2 not the only driver of climate, it is also one of the more insignificant. The REAL bad guy (as far as GHGs go) is your friendly neighborhood H2O in the form of water vapor. Not only is it more abundant, but also, single unit compared to single unit, significantly more "heating" than CO2.
Ironically ... one of the main technologies that AGW advocates hype on to replace CO2 generating cars is .... hydrogen-electric cars, which produce water vapor instead of CO2.
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas, true. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming. H2O doesn't drive temperatures, it's a consequence of evaporation, as Clausius-Clapeyron relation shows.If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two,so it's a short term effect.
Now that is one of the bigger misconceptions/misunderstandings of climate theory and of AGW theory as well. Being a feedback, water vapor feeds energy back into the system, regardless of source. It isn't strictly limited to CO2 as many postulate. Additionally, the reason we have NOT seen the warming predicted by AGW scientists is because of wrong assumption. They assumed that increased CO2 would generate additional water vapor, which would cause more heating.
Water vapor level depends on the temperature of the oceans and the air, it doesn't act as a prime driver of climate, unlike CO2 and CH4 which are the other primary greenhouse gases. While there are many drivers of climate, as I said already, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing. Water level gets back to a ''normal'' level very quickly through precipitations, while it takes MUCH longer for CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere.
I hope some these churches that were so quick to show that al gore film now will show this one too! I go to church and had to argue with people who thought that film was somehow a moral issue.
Please Please for the sake of intelligent debate, with unquestionable honesty, and totally reliable references based on trustworthy science from flawless instrumentation, let school start again (keeps the kiddies busy)....When is it, the week after New Years?
National Geographic is predicting some substantial 'cracks' in the Sun's Magnetosphere in 2012. Man, if it's not Nostradamus and the Mayan Calender it's a cracked Magneto...
Simple, the very fact that the others aren''t reporting climate gate exposes their AGW bias and agenda.
It's especially funny since Parliment has launched a full blow investigation of corruption, fraud, and criminal destruction of evidence, and no one but Fox is airing that either.
Well, the BBC, All Australian news, and most Canadian news is reporting it.
To quote your very eloquent words: You are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid.
A scientific theory just needs more proof and it becomes a fact.
Okay, you just explained how a theory becomes a fact. But you STILL haven't said what a THEORY is ... nor have you said what a FACT is.
It's okay if you don't know what they are. All you have to do is say anything other than what they are, and we'll know you are just too stupid to understand the concepts.
@ThrullseekR aw this is fantastic. If I had a banana I'd throw it as a reward. Do it again, do it again. Tell us how the scientific method works again...
That's what I thought. You can't explain the differences between a fact and a theory!
I didn't think you'd be able to. You are totally incapable of anything other than insulting.
I'm not at all surprised that you can't even answer a question as simple as that. What is a fact? What is a theory? I guess you don't know, since you CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN IT.
But continue thinking that a theory trumps a fact, it instantly invalidates ANYTHING you have to say.
@ThrullseekR look ass wipe I know what I am fucking talking about and I am NOTasking for permission as to whether or not I am right - esecially not from arrogant Australian ass pies. I have studied science at bachelor degree level and you wouldn't know a fucking photon from a fucking quark. Now I have a banana would you kindly boast to the world about your ignorance about the scientific method and tell us all about how theories can become facts again.Come on monkey do your stupid ass thing again
Okay. Where did you get Australian from? I'm glad you got a bachelors degree (at the age of 12, fat chance). Guess what? I have a PhD in Paleoclimatology.
Still doesn't change the fact that you said "a theory trumps a fact", thus illustrating that no only have no never studied science to a "bachelor degree level", but you don't actually know what a theory or a fact is.
If you do, it's easy to settle. Tell me, what is a fact and what is a theory.
@ThrullseekR So you have a PhD? Then I am God of the universe. Ah didn't see that coming eh? Oh and you can explain the absense of benthic lifeforms during periods of warming? Lets hear it ass wipe.
And to test further a new theory has been proposed in opposition to gaia theory - what was it called, who proposed it and what was his explanation for the lack of benthic lifeforms?
Oh and you can confirm that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation? And adding more CO2 wont raise temperatures because?
Truth is, you are completely incapable of even the simpliest explaination of what is a fact and what is a theory.
Since you CANNOT even answer that most fundamental of questions, what makes you or anyone else think that you can answer anything else.
Like I said, the only think you are doing is copying and pasting information from other sites without the vaguest understanding of what you are saying...
@ThrullseekR ah so we come full circle. Can't answer questions a PhD should know. And know fuck all about the science. So we are back to where we started you sir are a dshonest arrogant know nothing WANKER... Though you did get some bananas out of me and made me laugh my ass off at you stupidity... You turn in to your trailer, hang up you gun, make sme racist comment to a passer by and curl up with your bible and leave the thinking to the grown ups...
@ThrullseekR ohand get '6 degrees' by Mark Lynas and you will know what 4oC means... You VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid person sorry I mean MONKEY...
@ThrullseekR well I am tempted to keep throwing bananas but I think I'm in the mood to make the monkey blush. Tell you what, go get a source for your claim that a SCIENTIFIC theory is just waiting to become a fact... THIS I HAVE TO SEE. Or better yet pretend that you didn't see the challenge and change the subject then I might not notice you are completely full of the brown stuff. I'll throw the banana now because, lets face it, you are just going to same the same thing yet again... go on bigot
Uhm. Idiot. I've already provided several sources, which ou have deemed inadequate, this the reason I have asked you what you, in your high and mighty intelligence, is YOUR definition of THEORY and FACT.
And although I know this is just a distraction so you, once again, don't have to answer the question, I will reprovide those sources.
@ThrullseekR ah, so gone 20 minutes desperately looking then fall back on the same stupid assed post. So you yet a fucking gain use the common use of the term to win a lost argument...
I cant even get to the site BTW:
'Princeton University scientific theory' leads no where.. on google
@ThrullseekR oh and you dishonest wanker typing Princeton University into google get you their web page and NO FUCKING DICTIONARY - if you fucking had it you'd have fucking printed it. You know you know fuck all and just YET AFUCKING GAIN sending me on a wil goose chae. I agree we are done and multiply you irritaion at me by a fucking million and you are getting close to my irritation at you complete stupidity... Now please FUCK OFF MONKEY...
@ThrullseekR FUCKING HELL you are the worlds most shamelessy dishonest lying wanker - are you a psychopath by any chance? Do yo experience emotions? Love, Guilt, shame - I'm guessin NOT.
So I go to the page and get this:
scientific theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
So, this not only DOES NOT support you but disproves you. So tell me how can a scientific theory EVER become a fucking fact if it MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. NOW APOLOGIZE!
@ThrullseekR well that is fucking shameless - my mouth fell open at that reply. You lost by using your own source and you dont even have the decency to admit you have behaved like a slime ball. You go hand your head in shame MONKEY.
@ThrullseekR aw bless stupid and proud to the last - you most certainly haven't let the right wing bigot side down they would embrace you as an antiscience antireality based brother in arms against all forms of truth and decency... Have a banana
Please tell me why you think global warming is man-made. And don't give me that scientific consensus BS. There never has been a consensus and even if there was, science is not settled by a head count.
And. Btw. I am sorry to disappoint you but I don't fall into any of your categories of stupid people.
@ThorkilKowalski the black body radiation of the planet cannot explain its temperature. The explanation requires some additional explanation. That explanation is the greenouse effect. This traps the Earths out going long wave radiation and raises the temperature of the planet bu around 30oC. Now man has raised the amount of this blanket and this will trap more radiation raising the planets temperature. This has happened before and is STRONGLY linked to extinction events in the fossil record.
Doubling the amount of CO2 and keeping all other factors the same (zero feedback) will have a marginal effect on the greenhouse gas since CO2 is already practically absorbing all the heat it can. This is a scientific FACT.
The interesting part is then the feedback.The measurements of this feedback shows that there is a negative feedback (Richard Lindzen, MIT) yet IPCC's computer models use positive feedback. IPCC cannot be trusted
Yeah and Linden is opposed by ALL the worlds scientific institutions. Almost all the peer reviewed science and 97% of the worlds climatologists. You offer Lindzen saying nothing to worry about. Ill offer James Lovelock that says we are all fucked. Backing up Lovelock is paleoclimatology adn backing Lindzen is what>
As much as I HATE to agree with right-wing Global Warming denialists, in this case I kinda have to. I hate trolls and stupidity more than I hate right-wing nut jobs.
It is people like you who actually HURT the debate. What if someone who wasn't sure comes on this video and see how utterly stupid the sole AGW supporter is, most likely, you'll make them support the wrong side just because you are acting like an uneducated child.
I hate to tell you, but they are right. There is only one theory, there is no such thing as a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory.
Not to mention, if some lame ass right-wingers give some excuse why global warming isn't happening, you counter the argument with fact. Ignoring their comment or just calling them stupid makes them look right, not the other way around.
It is also pretty obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is people like you who make the right-wingers look like they know what they are talking about.
If you really want to save us from the disaster that is being caused by global warming, then just shut the fuck up. Your kindergarden tactics just make you look bad and since you are arguing for change, makes that look bad too.
So, for the sake of everyone who is honestly trying to win this debate and prove to these denialists that global warming is REAL .... STFU and go away. You don't understand what you are talking about.
So, according to what you just said: Man has raised the amount of the blanket which has caused extinction events in the fossil record?
Soooo .... Anthropogenic CO2 time travels now? Wow. But this is coming from the buy who thinks a theory trumps a fact and can't even explain the difference between a fact and a theory.
Are you saying that high CO2 concentrations or warm weather made the dinosaurs extinct??
1.: CO2 concentrations have been ten and 20 times higher than they are today and the earth's climate has entered an ice age while the CO2 concentration was that high.
2.: Warmer weather means a higher diversity of species. Low temperatures kill species. High temperatures do not.
3.: CO2 is historically a lagging indicator of global warming. Not the other way around.
@ThorkilKowalski look kid i KNOW WAY MORE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT THAN YOU EVER WILL.
The dinosaurs were wiped out by a meter. I said it was warmer during the cretaceous and the sun was COOLER so why was it warmer.
1) CO2 has been higher and so have temperatures - SO WHAT? Raise temperatures by 4oC and 1/3 of the planet is DESERT displacing and killing BILLIONS - YOUR POINT IS? See dinosaurs were lizard like because temperatures favored them NOT WHAT WE HAVE NOW!
2) raise temperures quicly and that causes MASS EXTINCTIONS! Oh and there was more life on the planet during ice ages than in intergalcierial - COUNTERINTUITIVLY!
3) The lag in CO2 means fuck all. Are you telling me that if your car broke down and you started pushing it then, when yopu reached a hill it would not accelerate because you not the hill started it moving. This is a VERY stupid argument from the Great Global Warming Swindle.
CO2 has been higher (and it started an ice age) and so have temperatures (with significantly lower CO2) - SO WHAT you say? I think goes to show that historical data proves there is little to no link between CO2 and GMT.
Not to mention, the temperature has been SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 4oC, significantly. You know what happened? The world was covered by dense rain forests the likes you can hardly imagine.
@ThrullseekR boy you are stupid - and you claim a PhD? FUCK OFF! So no answer to my questions and stupid comment...
The time you mention is snowball Earth - where the ice albedo dominated over the CO2 until CO2 was VERY high! So simple even you could understand.
And you say SIGNIFICANTLY higher - what a million degrees? Look all you need to know is that life will be devatstated. And where the fuck are you gona live on a fucking 4oC warmer planet moron...
Oh, P.S. We are still waiting for you to tell us what a theory and a fact is. You know, since a theory trumpts a fact and we disagree, we need your wise 12 year old mind to educate us PhDs.
So that is your fall-back argument. You know more than I do. Can't you see how ridiculous you are. You don't know me.
If you knew something about the subject, you would be able to address the feedback argument that I made; that there is a discrepancy between IPCC's bogus computer models and measurements.
I predict that no one will be talking about AGW in two years. It will be debunked. And I hope that you will make an public apology if my prediction turns out to be right.
He is so utterly incapable of holding an intelligent discussion. He has avoided every single question put to him, ignored every single source supplied to him ...
And now he is talking about faeries? Wow, you have just invented a whole new level of "troll".
See there you go again DO THE RESEACH and you will see the truth about faeries. Infact Robert Blue Pants submitted a list of over 189 trillion faerie specialists to congress - dont't belive me then google it!
See you are just being bigoted and difficult and insulting and not doing your own reaseach. If it wasn't for people like me no one would belive in faeries.
And it is YOU that is denying the existance of faeries so YOU are the troll not me. Ne ne nene ne (pokes tongue out).
That's fine. I actually see no difference in his discussion. What he was arguing before (if you can call it arguing) is just as ficticous as what he is talking about now.
In fact, I think his IQ might have gone up a few points. I think there might actually be more proof in the existence of faeries than there is in AGW (or his manhood for that matter).
Ah its typical of you faerie denialists, creating false equivalencies. WITH NO PROOF!
See you know faeries are real you just wont do the reasech. And after I proved it by showing that 334 trillion faerie specialists think he is wrong. Yet still he thinks he is right . Boy you anti faeries are such dishonest people.
@ThrullseekR yeah see you are EXACTLY like that other bigoted wanker I have been having the stupid faerie conversation with. Offer the largest compilation of SCIENTIFIC proof ever compiled and right wing scum bag dismisses it out of hand.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... WANKER!
Do you even know by what method of the IPCC/CRU used to come up with those numbers? If you do, you would know it isn't even CO2 that is the "bad guy". CO2 is just a vehicle for the "real cause", hypothetically.
According the the IPCC/CRU, when CO2 enters the ionosphere, solar irradiation breaks apart the molecule into CO and O. That rogue O bonds with hydrogen to form H2O in the form of water vapor.
Since water vapor is the most abundant and strongest of the greenhouse gases, hypothetically, the increased water vapor generated by increased CO2 should cause warming.
However, simple observations show that the theory isn't correct. More radiation is escaping into space, instead of less.
You see, the CRU forgot to take something into account. H2O also absorbs CO2 and since H2O doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it pulls a great deal of CO2 out of the air. So, doesn't have the predicted effect
@ThrullseekR ah another wriggly worm. So lets do this piece meal before we move on tell me a bigger SCIENTIFIC report than the IPCC (like you claimed) then we will do the stupid water vapor thing.
You want to play that game eh? Lets see ... the IPCC Report is exactly 52 pages long. Around 45 pages of that actually contain data.
Lets see. Here is a General Climatology Textbook with over 400 pages. So yeah, the IPCC report is the largest compilation of climate science. That is just a stupid claim to begin with.
Additionally, the stupid water vapor thing? If you are calling that stupid, then you are calling the IPCC report stupid. I take it, that you haven't read it? LOL
@ThrullseekR FUCKING HELL you are stupid. Go look at the full reprt and get back to me - boy you are nutty.
See you guys are so certain because you know fuck all.
And the water vapur thing is stupid because it is a FEEDBACK not a forcer of climate. But of couse you knew that, after all right winger know everything - or at least claim to (in reality knowing FUCK ALL)
That's laughable. You read the full report? Yeah right. Do you even know the difference between a Feedback and a forcing? I mean the ACTUAL differences, in practice, not the definition you pulled of your left-wing blogs?
Please. But, like I said.
You have ZERO evidence, because said evidence does not exist. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a consensus, not a fact. Why?
Do you even know the differences between a consensus, a theory, and a fact?
@ThrullseekR so the report is around 3000 pages and you cannot think of a larger compilation of evidence except a vaude ass pulled imaginary book?
The difference between a forcer and feedback is that one creates an even and the other resonds. Put all the worlds water into the amosphere and it will rain out in a couple of days. Do the same with CO2 and it will last centuries. Creating a prolonged warming 'forcer'.
And like I said 'IPCC report' and don't like that - then you dismiss science.
@StunnedByStupidity oh and consensus shown there is no seious debate and that nonone can find a plausible explination beyond that shown! And a theory -which is man made global waming is trumps a 'fact'. Yeah just like evolutionary 'theory' which trumps a fact! Hmmm want to go on or have you made yourself out to be a complete fool?
@ThrullseekR see this is EXACTLY why you fucking retards have no credibility. See in SCIENCE facts are collected for example the Earth is at a certain point relative to the sun at a particular time each year. Now that is a fact. A HYPOTHESIS could then be proposed to say that maybe if you gather ALL THOSE FACTS together they can be explained by saying the Earth revolves around the sun. Then Scientists try to falsify that HYPOTHESIS by finding exceptions. If they cant it becomes a THEORY! MORON!
@ThrullseekR Do me a fucking favour you fucking retard look up SCIENTIFIC THEORY, se in SCIENCE the word theory means something DIFFERENT from your stupid assed common usage - and to not know this staggers the mind. Basically it comes down to you know fuck all but THINK you know everything.
So to summarise you have now lost evry single fucking argument you have fucking made yet still likie the bigot you are stand defiantly and DEMAND that reality bend to your will - boy you are thick
You armchair idiots like to throw around buzz words like "feedback" and "forcings" (not forcer, idiot) without even knowing what they mean.
Please. You demand proof, but can't provide any of your own. Don't think I didn't notice how you all of sudden dropped the "IPCC Report" being the biggest collection of climate science. Did you honestly really think that a 52 page document contained ALL there is to know about climatology? Idiot
@ThrullseekR ah and looked up the water vapor thing and found your stupid hypothesis wanting eh? Hmmmm apology accepted.
And what the fuck constitutes proof on your stupid assed planet you lot are always doing this. You demand proof. It is supplied yet somehow dismissed. So lets find a scientific theory you accept and lets see what constitutes proof for you - of couse you wont do this - and we BOTH know why...
Last thing, then I'm done. I have better things to do than argue with a troll. Like ..... study the climate! I happen to be a climatologist you ignorant fuck.
Either way .... multiple independent sources confirm ... Including NASA ... that MORE radiation is escaping. If you are ignoring that, then you are just fucking stupid. Oh wait, we already established that.
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in the galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, and it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere, regulated by sun's magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN... watch all 6 parts...on YT.
@Blogengezer 'Beyond the ivory tower Naomi Orsekes' on google.
Don't listen to this fool he is posting the same nonsense everywhere. One looney tunes scientist is not worth puttinh the future of the planet on. FOLLOW THE PEER REVIWED SCIENCE - not Exxon propaganda and the looney right wing sheep like followers...
A tax on CO2 is literally a tax on BREATHING. Does it get any more Orwellian than THAT?!?
Are you willing to have your body's annual CO2 output evaluated by some stranger whose salary is the sole purpose of the tax which they will assess upon your very person?
CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. To criminalize CO2 is to CRIMINALIZE HUMAN LIFE.
We do not live in a Democracy, but a Hypocracy !!
That's interesting. I just looked up CO2, nope, not a pollutant. CO2 absorbs long wave radiation? Where ever did you hear that? Not only does CO2 NOT absorb "long wave radiation", it is actually broken down by it. CO2 is converted to CO (carbon monoxide).
Not to mention, here's the crux of it. IF CO2 behaved the way that AGW advocates like you suggest, then why are all the climate models to date .... wrong? Why is every prediction to date been wrong?
@mcdonalsuny so to re print the question - because you a dishonest 14 year old smart ass. DEFINE pollutant.
And CO2 doesnt absorb long wave radiation? 'outgoing long wave radiation wiki' google it.
And shouting that you are a pig ignorant moron is impressing no one. Oh and explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury inspite of being further from the sun. Oh and what caused 'The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum'?
Stunned By Stupidity is an apt description of yourself.
As usual, you resort to slander to win your argument - in fact my father was the leader of the socialist party here in Canada in the 70's and 80's. So I am hardly a right winger.
However, the people trying to enslave us ARE fascists. CO2 is only a 'pollutant' because the now irrelevant EPA has designated it as such.
To declare war on CO2 is to declare war on LIFE ITSELF. Anyway, 'cap and trade' won't reduce its emission ONE BIT!!
Still here? You know what your problem is? You copy and paste information you find on other websites without ANY understanding of what the hell you are talking about. If you don't even understand what you are talking about, how the hell can you understand what someone else says in responce to you?
Seriously, if you don't even know the difference between a FACT and a THEORY, how can you POSSIBLY understand ANYTHING in science?
You don't know the difference between a feedback and a forcing, yet you use them. You don't even understand what the IPCC Report says, yet you attempt to cite it. You don't understand the GHG properties of CO2 and H2O, yet you use them in argument. You don't understand what radiation is, much less LONG WAVE Radiation. You just read it some where and posted it here.
Unfortunately ... you still don't even know the difference between a fact and theory, so how could you know the difference between a feedback and a forcing?
I'm sorry to tell you, but you simply do not understand enough to participate in any scientific discussion. You don't have the slightest grasp on scientific procedures or principles.
Just because you "mommy" talk you AGW is real, doesn't make it so. You don't understand something, so you call the person who said it "stupid". Since you are the one who doesn't understand it, who is the stupid one?
@ThrullseekR boy why use 3 words to make a VERY stupid point when you could use a million eh? All this stupid assed bluster and NO thats NO fucking facts or arguments, you you have the audacity to lecture me. Oh, forgot again, I am dealing with an ignorant right winger...
Of course I'm going to lecture you child. The one who thinks a theory trumps a fact. The one who doesn't know the difference between a feedback and a forcing. The one who can't comprehend that he doesn't even understand the sources he attempts to cite.
It is obvious you are just a little boy who doesn't get enough attention, so you come on here to try to argue. But because you can't understand what people are saying, you just call them stupid.
@ThrullseekR look ass wipe WATCH FUCKING VIDEO I POSTED then try to engage your VERY stupid brain and understand the the common use of the term is DIFFERENT from the scientific version. You are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid.
The "scientific version". The "scientific version"? Oh yeah, just because you being a 12 year old thinks it's cool to call someone stupid, it's just because you don't understand.
Here you go. The SCIENTIFIC definition of Fact. From the Princeton University dictionary.
"an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true"
@ThrullseekR fucking hell you are KING SIZE bigot. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY not a fucking scientific fact idiot. DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO? Of course not - see you are retarded and like all right wingers it is someone elses fault (mine). You lost now get over yourself. And you know full fucking well that the PETM was caused by carbon either CO2 or CH4 you fucking ass wipe. It is THE event scientists look to for similarities of what is happening today. And the cretaceous was warmer than now because?
You just proved it again. You don't know the difference between a SCIENTIFIC fact or a SCIENTIFIC theory. BTW, you do know that there is only one kind of theory right? A scientific one. Theory is a science term. Idiot.
I lost? You've yet to say ANYTHING other than "stupid".
Does your mommy know you use naughty words on youtube? Should I send her an email?
Seriously, after that BLUNDER of a statement (theory trumps fact), how can you even PRETEND that you know ANYTHING about science, much less climatology.
@ThrullseekR you can say it a million times and each time you make yourself look more and more stupid. Tell you what why not say it again for all the world to see how bigoted you are.
Likewise, you don't understand evidence that someone provides in support of their arguments. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't invalidate it.
If I had to guess, I'd say you were ... around 12 or 13 years old. Do yourself a favor. Wait until you take some basic science courses .... even chemistry or physics ... before you come back here again.
It is really sad that someone with your complete lack of education is trying to argue science.
@ThrullseekR right read the 4 VERY stupid posts, now lets get down to facts. We will forget you just lost ALL those arguments (some of them samefully so!). Now what caused the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum?
And why during the time of the dinosaurs, when the sun was around0.5% COOLER was the temperature of the Earth warmer than now?
What question? You didn't ask one. (boy are you stupid).
What caused the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum? Primarily, Orbital Forcings, specifically the Elmo Horizon (aka ETM2), which a 400,000 and 100,000 year cycle in the eccentric orbit of the Earth.
Too bad you just too fucking stupid to even understand that.
Here's the thing CHILD. You have not provided a single piece of evidence, not to mention that you don't know the difference between a fact and a theory.
All you do is insult, claim you are right, ignore evidence and call people stupid.
You need to grow up. Let me guess, you are the annoying brat that stands by himself on the playground and gets your ass kicked on a weekly basis?
@ThrullseekR fucking hell I want you to make a complete ass of yourself and just confirm my suspicion that you think that when enough evidence is collected that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY will then become a fact. Go on say it I dare you to expose your stupidity. Go on...
Uhm. Idiot. A Theory is a theory because it has not yet been proven to be a FACT. A theory is UNPROVEN. Yes, many theories go on to become fact, but ONLY after they have been proven.
In NO WAY does a THEORY trump a FACT.
So. I ask again, does your mommy know your on youtube? Or is she passed out in the living room after whoring herself out all day?
That wins first prise as THE stupidest thing a right winger has ever said in relation to science. So let's get this right a SCIENTIFIC theory is only a theory until it becomes a fact? RIGHT?
Well I have to say I just spat my coffee all over my desk I laughed so hard.
So a SCIENTIFIC THEORY just needs more evidence and it becomes a fact.... Boy I don;t think I'm ever going to get tired of typing that hilarious statement.
Wait? A SCIENTIFIC theory just needs more evidence and it becomes a fact? You do realize that is PRECISELY what I said, don't you? Theory: Unproven. Fact: Proven.
Not to mention, WTF does Evolution and Creationism have to do with the discussion we are having?
Have you taken your medication today? Oh I forgot ... your crack whole mother stole it all so she could be high while she fucks strangers for money.
@ThrullseekR sniff sniff ah the pungent arroma of the bigot. Like I said the video had NOTHING what so ever to do with creationism. But you didn't even bother checking.
Go on ass wipe say it again say it again. people who come to this site are going to be pissing themselves at the Auzzies stupidity (and bigotry)...
Think of all the brilliant scientists whos lives have been destroyed. Their excellent work was discredited by this corrupt system of science. They deserve their day in court plus financial restitution.
weslingm 2 years ago
public money equals not private, all should be F.I.A.
MichaelMann007 2 years ago
When queried about some questionable data, presented as facts, the IPCC quoted WIKI Using the old disproved graphs...LOL
The house of cards is crumbling, Only intervention by governments bent on World Control can save it now. Write your elected officials. Vote like your life depended on it...it does.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
Lots of Tap Dancing now. Coldest winter for quite some time. Enjoy this COLD winter. Way too much Snow and Cold, poor Polar Bears can't even find a Seal.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
That documentry is easily refuted, and there are many mistakes in the graphs.
MihaZ 2 years ago
THIS is 'Climate Change' You can believe in: tinyurl com/yzvtptl La Brea California. Back when Science was a respected, peer reviewed, process. Totally unlike today's Corruption infested, Greed driven 'Tricks' used for achieving a 'Goal'... Wealth and Power.
Take note of the disproportionate number of 'Dire Wolves' . Endlessly tried the same tactics and expected different results. Extinction...was imminent...AGW 'Believers'?
Smarter 'Timber Wolf', Refused to 'Believe' in 'Tar Walking'.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
mcaleer didn't know what the fuck what he was reading with those emails! This is fucking hilarious!
yerallmorons 2 years ago
Not sure if the AGW worshipers only Wiki (notably biased) and watch vids, If that is the case, YT has a six part series on CLOUDS. based on Physicist Svensmark and his Physicist team's studies. If preference is to actually read about opposing theory, check out this easy reader for starters. The rest is up to you. tinyurl com/yjvrd5 Junk Science.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
Google "climate during the carboniferous period". There was a time when Earth's temperatures were similar to what they are now, with a CO2 level far above what we have today.
MeanGene79 2 years ago
CO2 is not the only driver of climate. How ignorant can you be?
MihaZ 2 years ago
@MihaZ If you had bothered to Google what I said to in my previous post, you would know that's exactly the point I was trying to make. In fact, CO2 has very little impact on "global warming".
MeanGene79 2 years ago
Sorry, I don't ''google'' stuff, I read science journals. There is no correlation between CO2 anad temperatures, and no serious scientist will claim that. However, there is a very strong correlation between CO2, solar activity, and temperature. The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century, where have you been? Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2.
MihaZ 2 years ago
Comment removed
MihaZ 2 years ago
I would like to know which ',time'' you are referring too, has our planet is old, and that lots of things happened! But since you didn't mention it in the first place, I doubt you ever read any papers written by a paleoclimatologist.
MihaZ 2 years ago
@MihaZ Why are you arguing with me when we're on the same side here? And what I referenced before IS a scientific writing. And I do read scientific journals, I don't get all my info from Google.
MeanGene79 2 years ago
I don't think we agree though, since you stated that CO2 has little effect on climate, which is the opposite of what I wrote.
MihaZ 2 years ago
During the carboniferous and ordovician periods, CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today, yet the temperature was about the same as it is today.
MeanGene79 2 years ago
It's true that CO2 level was much greater, but as I stated earlier, it's not the only factor. The solar energy output was about 4,3 % less than it is today, which would be enough to begin an Ice Age. And yet, temperatures were pretty high. CO2 balanced the climate. How do we know that? As you know, the late Ordovician was an Ice Age. How could the earth have lost most of its CO2 so quickly?
MihaZ 2 years ago
Exactly. But the climate fear-mongerers don't want people to know about the other factors. To them it's all about the CO2.
MeanGene79 2 years ago
We have an agreement there MeanGene79 =). ''Beleivers'' and ''Deniers'' both have the wrong approach imo. But extremes sell well in the media. Hardly any way around it sadly. I prefer rational debate based on empirical evidence. And I'm always glad to read competent skeptics like Shaviv, Svensmark, Friis-C and Lindzen. It's very healthy to have scientists publish conclusions based on observations to explain a phenomenon - climate for instance - until we find a consistent model.
MihaZ 2 years ago
where in the world do you get a "4.3% less"
MichaelMann007 2 years ago
CO2 dropped in the bottom of the oceans through a simple chemical reaction, becoming calcium or magnesium carbonate and is eventually turned into sediments. That is the basic cycle of carbon lol. Data confirms that, I can PM you the articles. As for the ice age, in addition to that, the continents gathered to the south, and the orbit of our planet might have had a role in the cause of the Ice Age. Co2 levels were preventing an Ice Age, and when it dropped, it happened.
MihaZ 2 years ago
This specific period was studied alot, and it shows the intricate relation between solar output, CO2 and temperatures. Climate is a combination of factors. And lately, the solar activity has remained constant, while CO2 levels inreased, so did the temperatures. How can it be less obvious lol? Read some more about paleoclimatology, it's quite interesting, and quite accessible online.
MihaZ 2 years ago
Agreed. Not only is CO2 not the only driver of climate, it is also one of the more insignificant. The REAL bad guy (as far as GHGs go) is your friendly neighborhood H2O in the form of water vapor. Not only is it more abundant, but also, single unit compared to single unit, significantly more "heating" than CO2.
Ironically ... one of the main technologies that AGW advocates hype on to replace CO2 generating cars is .... hydrogen-electric cars, which produce water vapor instead of CO2.
Ironic
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas, true. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming. H2O doesn't drive temperatures, it's a consequence of evaporation, as Clausius-Clapeyron relation shows.If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two,so it's a short term effect.
MihaZ 2 years ago
Now that is one of the bigger misconceptions/misunderstandings of climate theory and of AGW theory as well. Being a feedback, water vapor feeds energy back into the system, regardless of source. It isn't strictly limited to CO2 as many postulate. Additionally, the reason we have NOT seen the warming predicted by AGW scientists is because of wrong assumption. They assumed that increased CO2 would generate additional water vapor, which would cause more heating.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
Water vapor level depends on the temperature of the oceans and the air, it doesn't act as a prime driver of climate, unlike CO2 and CH4 which are the other primary greenhouse gases. While there are many drivers of climate, as I said already, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing. Water level gets back to a ''normal'' level very quickly through precipitations, while it takes MUCH longer for CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere.
MihaZ 2 years ago
I hope some these churches that were so quick to show that al gore film now will show this one too! I go to church and had to argue with people who thought that film was somehow a moral issue.
roger5845 2 years ago 2
Please Please for the sake of intelligent debate, with unquestionable honesty, and totally reliable references based on trustworthy science from flawless instrumentation, let school start again (keeps the kiddies busy)....When is it, the week after New Years?
Blogengezer 2 years ago
National Geographic is predicting some substantial 'cracks' in the Sun's Magnetosphere in 2012. Man, if it's not Nostradamus and the Mayan Calender it's a cracked Magneto...
Blogengezer 2 years ago
Why is Fox News the only media outlet reporting on Climate Gate?
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
@ThorkilKowalski
Simple, the very fact that the others aren''t reporting climate gate exposes their AGW bias and agenda.
It's especially funny since Parliment has launched a full blow investigation of corruption, fraud, and criminal destruction of evidence, and no one but Fox is airing that either.
Well, the BBC, All Australian news, and most Canadian news is reporting it.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThorkilKowalski because they are the only smeless bigoted wankers who have viewers stupid enough to believe that nonsense...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
So I'm waiting.
What do you think a Theory is, and what do you think a Fact is?
This should be good.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR oh don;t spil the fun say it again. Go on it never gets tired. A SCIENTIFIC theory just needs more proof and it becomes a fact.
Oh, go on say it again. There is only 1 person more stupid than a southern white American and that is a North Eastern Australian and I'm guessing...
Go on admit it and say it again for us all you stupid monkey say it again...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
To quote your very eloquent words: You are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid.
A scientific theory just needs more proof and it becomes a fact.
Okay, you just explained how a theory becomes a fact. But you STILL haven't said what a THEORY is ... nor have you said what a FACT is.
It's okay if you don't know what they are. All you have to do is say anything other than what they are, and we'll know you are just too stupid to understand the concepts.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR aw this is fantastic. If I had a banana I'd throw it as a reward. Do it again, do it again. Tell us how the scientific method works again...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
That's what I thought. You can't explain the differences between a fact and a theory!
I didn't think you'd be able to. You are totally incapable of anything other than insulting.
I'm not at all surprised that you can't even answer a question as simple as that. What is a fact? What is a theory? I guess you don't know, since you CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN IT.
But continue thinking that a theory trumps a fact, it instantly invalidates ANYTHING you have to say.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR look ass wipe I know what I am fucking talking about and I am NOTasking for permission as to whether or not I am right - esecially not from arrogant Australian ass pies. I have studied science at bachelor degree level and you wouldn't know a fucking photon from a fucking quark. Now I have a banana would you kindly boast to the world about your ignorance about the scientific method and tell us all about how theories can become facts again.Come on monkey do your stupid ass thing again
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Okay. Where did you get Australian from? I'm glad you got a bachelors degree (at the age of 12, fat chance). Guess what? I have a PhD in Paleoclimatology.
Still doesn't change the fact that you said "a theory trumps a fact", thus illustrating that no only have no never studied science to a "bachelor degree level", but you don't actually know what a theory or a fact is.
If you do, it's easy to settle. Tell me, what is a fact and what is a theory.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR So you have a PhD? Then I am God of the universe. Ah didn't see that coming eh? Oh and you can explain the absense of benthic lifeforms during periods of warming? Lets hear it ass wipe.
And to test further a new theory has been proposed in opposition to gaia theory - what was it called, who proposed it and what was his explanation for the lack of benthic lifeforms?
Oh and you can confirm that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation? And adding more CO2 wont raise temperatures because?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Truth is, you are completely incapable of even the simpliest explaination of what is a fact and what is a theory.
Since you CANNOT even answer that most fundamental of questions, what makes you or anyone else think that you can answer anything else.
Like I said, the only think you are doing is copying and pasting information from other sites without the vaguest understanding of what you are saying...
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
If you can't even understand the basic principles of what YOU are saying, how can you possibly understand what anyone else says?
Time to call it a night, kiddy, I hear your mom calling. Time to brush your teeth and go to bed.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ah so we come full circle. Can't answer questions a PhD should know. And know fuck all about the science. So we are back to where we started you sir are a dshonest arrogant know nothing WANKER... Though you did get some bananas out of me and made me laugh my ass off at you stupidity... You turn in to your trailer, hang up you gun, make sme racist comment to a passer by and curl up with your bible and leave the thinking to the grown ups...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Firstly, you have yet to ask a question worth answering. All the while avoiding the simple question of: What is a Fact and what is a Theory?
Can't answer that question? No. You. Can't.
You have been avoiding that question for several hours. You are transparent. You cowardly attempt to avoid the question by distractions and insults.
4oC warmer? Do you even know what THAT means?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ohand get '6 degrees' by Mark Lynas and you will know what 4oC means... You VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid person sorry I mean MONKEY...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Yup, that's right. Back your usual standby. You (are) VERY x5 stupid. Yeah yeah yeah. That's all you can say.
So. Is my theory right? Shall I upgrade it to a fact?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR well I am tempted to keep throwing bananas but I think I'm in the mood to make the monkey blush. Tell you what, go get a source for your claim that a SCIENTIFIC theory is just waiting to become a fact... THIS I HAVE TO SEE. Or better yet pretend that you didn't see the challenge and change the subject then I might not notice you are completely full of the brown stuff. I'll throw the banana now because, lets face it, you are just going to same the same thing yet again... go on bigot
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Uhm. Idiot. I've already provided several sources, which ou have deemed inadequate, this the reason I have asked you what you, in your high and mighty intelligence, is YOUR definition of THEORY and FACT.
And although I know this is just a distraction so you, once again, don't have to answer the question, I will reprovide those sources.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Sources:
Princeton University
You can google it. They have an online dictionary.
But this shows your idiocy even more. You need a SOURCE to prove that a theory is not a fact, while a fact is true.
You are truly pathetic, you really are.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ah, so gone 20 minutes desperately looking then fall back on the same stupid assed post. So you yet a fucking gain use the common use of the term to win a lost argument...
I cant even get to the site BTW:
'Princeton University scientific theory' leads no where.. on google
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
ROFL! That settles it! You can't find Princeton University ... ON GOOGLE!
Seriously, who the fuck do you think you are kidding!
Okay, I'm done. You are just a pointless COWARD little 12 year old boy. Can't define Theory. Can't define Fact. Can't .... Find Princeton University.
I am at a loss for words .... anyway. I'm done.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR oh and you dishonest wanker typing Princeton University into google get you their web page and NO FUCKING DICTIONARY - if you fucking had it you'd have fucking printed it. You know you know fuck all and just YET AFUCKING GAIN sending me on a wil goose chae. I agree we are done and multiply you irritaion at me by a fucking million and you are getting close to my irritation at you complete stupidity... Now please FUCK OFF MONKEY...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Princeton University Online Dictionary
wordnetweb . princeton . edu / perl / webwn?s=stupid
You can't get anything right, can you?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR FUCKING HELL you are the worlds most shamelessy dishonest lying wanker - are you a psychopath by any chance? Do yo experience emotions? Love, Guilt, shame - I'm guessin NOT.
So I go to the page and get this:
scientific theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
So, this not only DOES NOT support you but disproves you. So tell me how can a scientific theory EVER become a fucking fact if it MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. NOW APOLOGIZE!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
One. How does it disprove me?
You know what. I'm done. I can not even begin to explain how fucking stupid you are.
You don't even know the difference a fact and theory. You are truly pathetic.
Don't bother replying. No one cares about you, no one cares about your pointless replies.
Get a life little kid.
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR well that is fucking shameless - my mouth fell open at that reply. You lost by using your own source and you dont even have the decency to admit you have behaved like a slime ball. You go hand your head in shame MONKEY.
Bad MONKEY no banana for you...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR
WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING APOLOGY MONKEY?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Did he really say "a theory trumps a fact"?
Stunned. You do know that everyone who reads this thread is laughing at you, don't you?
mcdonalsuny 2 years ago
@mcdonalsuny look the faeries have spoken and you can't handle the truth.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Looks like I win the argument though. Since you can't even define what a fact or theory is. You conceeded defeat by not answering.
Anyway, go back to thinking a theory trumps a fact. Go back to thinking that 4oC will destroy the planet.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR aw bless stupid and proud to the last - you most certainly haven't let the right wing bigot side down they would embrace you as an antiscience antireality based brother in arms against all forms of truth and decency... Have a banana
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Wow. Look, another insult. Oh look, still haven't answer the question!
Don't you get tired of continually being proven wrong?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
@StunnedByStupidity
What's wrong?
Can't answer a simple question like: What is a fact and what is a theory?
You lose moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ook ook ook, *THROWS BANANA*
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Yup. Avoiding the question again.
It's okay. We understand that you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to know the difference between a fact and theory.
I have a theory ... most likely a fact, but I'll call it a theory for the time being.
My theory is: You know you are busted. You know I am right about Theories and Facts. You know that you were wrong to say "a theory trumps a fact".
You know it, but you are just too afraid to admit you are wrong.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
Please tell me why you think global warming is man-made. And don't give me that scientific consensus BS. There never has been a consensus and even if there was, science is not settled by a head count.
And. Btw. I am sorry to disappoint you but I don't fall into any of your categories of stupid people.
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
@ThorkilKowalski the black body radiation of the planet cannot explain its temperature. The explanation requires some additional explanation. That explanation is the greenouse effect. This traps the Earths out going long wave radiation and raises the temperature of the planet bu around 30oC. Now man has raised the amount of this blanket and this will trap more radiation raising the planets temperature. This has happened before and is STRONGLY linked to extinction events in the fossil record.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
You are right about the covering blanket.
On the effect on CO2:
Doubling the amount of CO2 and keeping all other factors the same (zero feedback) will have a marginal effect on the greenhouse gas since CO2 is already practically absorbing all the heat it can. This is a scientific FACT.
The interesting part is then the feedback.The measurements of this feedback shows that there is a negative feedback (Richard Lindzen, MIT) yet IPCC's computer models use positive feedback. IPCC cannot be trusted
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
edit.: "marginal effect on the greenhouse gas effect" it should say.
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
Yeah and Linden is opposed by ALL the worlds scientific institutions. Almost all the peer reviewed science and 97% of the worlds climatologists. You offer Lindzen saying nothing to worry about. Ill offer James Lovelock that says we are all fucked. Backing up Lovelock is paleoclimatology adn backing Lindzen is what>
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
As much as I HATE to agree with right-wing Global Warming denialists, in this case I kinda have to. I hate trolls and stupidity more than I hate right-wing nut jobs.
It is people like you who actually HURT the debate. What if someone who wasn't sure comes on this video and see how utterly stupid the sole AGW supporter is, most likely, you'll make them support the wrong side just because you are acting like an uneducated child.
2121975s 2 years ago
@2121975s hey asswipe go fuck yourself and keep your retarded fucking opinions to yourself.
You know what I hate... TWATS...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I hate to tell you, but they are right. There is only one theory, there is no such thing as a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory.
Not to mention, if some lame ass right-wingers give some excuse why global warming isn't happening, you counter the argument with fact. Ignoring their comment or just calling them stupid makes them look right, not the other way around.
2121975s 2 years ago
LOL there is NO science to support HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL ANYthing! Warming or COOLING we are KNATS!!!
Bunch of whinning Arrogant fools that think we matterto the earth...LOL how LAME Global Warming and all ECO thought is.
HAHAHa
davenetdog 2 years ago
@davenetdog
Al Gore & Co should watch my video on global warming... he is featured in that one too :)
Type "OBAMA'S CLIMATEGATE"!
AshkanSGE 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
It is also pretty obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is people like you who make the right-wingers look like they know what they are talking about.
If you really want to save us from the disaster that is being caused by global warming, then just shut the fuck up. Your kindergarden tactics just make you look bad and since you are arguing for change, makes that look bad too.
2121975s 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
So, for the sake of everyone who is honestly trying to win this debate and prove to these denialists that global warming is REAL .... STFU and go away. You don't understand what you are talking about.
2121975s 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
So, according to what you just said: Man has raised the amount of the blanket which has caused extinction events in the fossil record?
Soooo .... Anthropogenic CO2 time travels now? Wow. But this is coming from the buy who thinks a theory trumps a fact and can't even explain the difference between a fact and a theory.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
Regarding the extinction:
Are you saying that high CO2 concentrations or warm weather made the dinosaurs extinct??
1.: CO2 concentrations have been ten and 20 times higher than they are today and the earth's climate has entered an ice age while the CO2 concentration was that high.
2.: Warmer weather means a higher diversity of species. Low temperatures kill species. High temperatures do not.
3.: CO2 is historically a lagging indicator of global warming. Not the other way around.
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
@ThorkilKowalski look kid i KNOW WAY MORE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT THAN YOU EVER WILL.
The dinosaurs were wiped out by a meter. I said it was warmer during the cretaceous and the sun was COOLER so why was it warmer.
1) CO2 has been higher and so have temperatures - SO WHAT? Raise temperatures by 4oC and 1/3 of the planet is DESERT displacing and killing BILLIONS - YOUR POINT IS? See dinosaurs were lizard like because temperatures favored them NOT WHAT WE HAVE NOW!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
2) raise temperures quicly and that causes MASS EXTINCTIONS! Oh and there was more life on the planet during ice ages than in intergalcierial - COUNTERINTUITIVLY!
3) The lag in CO2 means fuck all. Are you telling me that if your car broke down and you started pushing it then, when yopu reached a hill it would not accelerate because you not the hill started it moving. This is a VERY stupid argument from the Great Global Warming Swindle.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
CO2 has been higher (and it started an ice age) and so have temperatures (with significantly lower CO2) - SO WHAT you say? I think goes to show that historical data proves there is little to no link between CO2 and GMT.
Not to mention, the temperature has been SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 4oC, significantly. You know what happened? The world was covered by dense rain forests the likes you can hardly imagine.
Also, Dinosaurs were most certainly NOT lizards.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR boy you are stupid - and you claim a PhD? FUCK OFF! So no answer to my questions and stupid comment...
The time you mention is snowball Earth - where the ice albedo dominated over the CO2 until CO2 was VERY high! So simple even you could understand.
And you say SIGNIFICANTLY higher - what a million degrees? Look all you need to know is that life will be devatstated. And where the fuck are you gona live on a fucking 4oC warmer planet moron...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Oh, P.S. We are still waiting for you to tell us what a theory and a fact is. You know, since a theory trumpts a fact and we disagree, we need your wise 12 year old mind to educate us PhDs.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
So that is your fall-back argument. You know more than I do. Can't you see how ridiculous you are. You don't know me.
If you knew something about the subject, you would be able to address the feedback argument that I made; that there is a discrepancy between IPCC's bogus computer models and measurements.
I predict that no one will be talking about AGW in two years. It will be debunked. And I hope that you will make an public apology if my prediction turns out to be right.
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
@ThorkilKowalski
Truthfully, I wouldn't bother with this kid. His only answer to any challenge is "you're stupid and I know more".
As you have seen, he has stated "a theory trumps a fact", and has yet to explain HIS idea of what a fact and what a theory is.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThorkilKowalski so global warming has been known for more than 100 years yet it will be over in 2? How stupid are you?
See 'Global warming 1958' on you tube. They knew 50 FUCKING years ago!
Now you have been nailed give it up...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
A tax on CO2 is literally a tax on BREATHING.
CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT.
To criminalize CO2 is to CRIMINALIZE HUMAN LIFE.
beggarz 2 years ago
@beggarz no its's not don't be so stupid.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Now there's the proof.
He is so utterly incapable of holding an intelligent discussion. He has avoided every single question put to him, ignored every single source supplied to him ...
And now he is talking about faeries? Wow, you have just invented a whole new level of "troll".
Good job. Good job.
mcdonalsuny 2 years ago
@mcdonalsuny
See there you go again DO THE RESEACH and you will see the truth about faeries. Infact Robert Blue Pants submitted a list of over 189 trillion faerie specialists to congress - dont't belive me then google it!
See you are just being bigoted and difficult and insulting and not doing your own reaseach. If it wasn't for people like me no one would belive in faeries.
And it is YOU that is denying the existance of faeries so YOU are the troll not me. Ne ne nene ne (pokes tongue out).
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
That's fine. I actually see no difference in his discussion. What he was arguing before (if you can call it arguing) is just as ficticous as what he is talking about now.
In fact, I think his IQ might have gone up a few points. I think there might actually be more proof in the existence of faeries than there is in AGW (or his manhood for that matter).
mcdonalsuny 2 years ago
@mcdonalsuny
Ah its typical of you faerie denialists, creating false equivalencies. WITH NO PROOF!
See you know faeries are real you just wont do the reasech. And after I proved it by showing that 334 trillion faerie specialists think he is wrong. Yet still he thinks he is right . Boy you anti faeries are such dishonest people.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Yeah ... I didn't think you have proof of what has caused the warming over the last 30 years either.
Funny how that works.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR yeah see you are EXACTLY like that other bigoted wanker I have been having the stupid faerie conversation with. Offer the largest compilation of SCIENTIFIC proof ever compiled and right wing scum bag dismisses it out of hand.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... WANKER!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
So that is a yes? You really do think a few dozen pages is the largest collection of climate data ever compiled?
The 2000 documents and 1000 emails leaked from the CRU contain more data than the IPCC Report.
Why are you even arguing that? Does it really matter who has "the biggest report"?
The question should be ... how ACCURATE and FACTUAL is the report.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Do you even know by what method of the IPCC/CRU used to come up with those numbers? If you do, you would know it isn't even CO2 that is the "bad guy". CO2 is just a vehicle for the "real cause", hypothetically.
According the the IPCC/CRU, when CO2 enters the ionosphere, solar irradiation breaks apart the molecule into CO and O. That rogue O bonds with hydrogen to form H2O in the form of water vapor.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
Since water vapor is the most abundant and strongest of the greenhouse gases, hypothetically, the increased water vapor generated by increased CO2 should cause warming.
However, simple observations show that the theory isn't correct. More radiation is escaping into space, instead of less.
You see, the CRU forgot to take something into account. H2O also absorbs CO2 and since H2O doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it pulls a great deal of CO2 out of the air. So, doesn't have the predicted effect
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ah another wriggly worm. So lets do this piece meal before we move on tell me a bigger SCIENTIFIC report than the IPCC (like you claimed) then we will do the stupid water vapor thing.
(oh and LESS radiation is escaping -sheez).
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
You want to play that game eh? Lets see ... the IPCC Report is exactly 52 pages long. Around 45 pages of that actually contain data.
Lets see. Here is a General Climatology Textbook with over 400 pages. So yeah, the IPCC report is the largest compilation of climate science. That is just a stupid claim to begin with.
Additionally, the stupid water vapor thing? If you are calling that stupid, then you are calling the IPCC report stupid. I take it, that you haven't read it? LOL
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR FUCKING HELL you are stupid. Go look at the full reprt and get back to me - boy you are nutty.
See you guys are so certain because you know fuck all.
And the water vapur thing is stupid because it is a FEEDBACK not a forcer of climate. But of couse you knew that, after all right winger know everything - or at least claim to (in reality knowing FUCK ALL)
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
That's laughable. You read the full report? Yeah right. Do you even know the difference between a Feedback and a forcing? I mean the ACTUAL differences, in practice, not the definition you pulled of your left-wing blogs?
Please. But, like I said.
You have ZERO evidence, because said evidence does not exist. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a consensus, not a fact. Why?
Do you even know the differences between a consensus, a theory, and a fact?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR so the report is around 3000 pages and you cannot think of a larger compilation of evidence except a vaude ass pulled imaginary book?
The difference between a forcer and feedback is that one creates an even and the other resonds. Put all the worlds water into the amosphere and it will rain out in a couple of days. Do the same with CO2 and it will last centuries. Creating a prolonged warming 'forcer'.
And like I said 'IPCC report' and don't like that - then you dismiss science.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity oh and consensus shown there is no seious debate and that nonone can find a plausible explination beyond that shown! And a theory -which is man made global waming is trumps a 'fact'. Yeah just like evolutionary 'theory' which trumps a fact! Hmmm want to go on or have you made yourself out to be a complete fool?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Wait wait wait .... a THEORY trumps a FACT?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid!
Here is the difference between a theory and a fact. A theory is UNPROVEN. A Fact is a PROVEN THEORY!
A theory trumps fact!!!! OMG you a fucking stupid!
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR see this is EXACTLY why you fucking retards have no credibility. See in SCIENCE facts are collected for example the Earth is at a certain point relative to the sun at a particular time each year. Now that is a fact. A HYPOTHESIS could then be proposed to say that maybe if you gather ALL THOSE FACTS together they can be explained by saying the Earth revolves around the sun. Then Scientists try to falsify that HYPOTHESIS by finding exceptions. If they cant it becomes a THEORY! MORON!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Did you learn that in your 3rd grade class last year?
Do you really believe that a theory trumps a fact?
Jesus Christ! Is English your second language? Are you just mentally handicapped? Let me make this easy on you.
Get a fucking dictionary and look up FACT, HYPOTHESIS and THEORY. Because you have NO fucking clue what ANY of them mean.
Funny, I always assume that those words were part of the common lexicon. I've never met anyone who didn't know what they meant! LOLLOL.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR Do me a fucking favour you fucking retard look up SCIENTIFIC THEORY, se in SCIENCE the word theory means something DIFFERENT from your stupid assed common usage - and to not know this staggers the mind. Basically it comes down to you know fuck all but THINK you know everything.
So to summarise you have now lost evry single fucking argument you have fucking made yet still likie the bigot you are stand defiantly and DEMAND that reality bend to your will - boy you are thick
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
FACT - something that actually exists; reality; truth
HYPOTHESIS - a mere assumption or guess.
THEORY - contemplation or speculation; guess or conjecture.
Simplified definitions, but they'll do for a simpleton like you!
LMAO LOL
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR the gloating retart would be a much better name than your present handle...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR I know I am waisting my time on you but:
'Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory?' on youtube
This explains theory!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
ROFL LMAO!
THERE! Thank you for proving that you are the biggest fucking idiot on the god damn planet! THANK YOU!
The IPCC Report around 3000 pages!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Did you faeries tell you that number? LMAO!!!
If you took all the IPCC Reports it wouldn't be NEAR 500 pages, much less 3000!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Youa re truly pathetic. Once again, it's FORCINGS, not "forcer" Fucking idiot.
Thanks for the laugh though. I needed a good laugh.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
You armchair idiots like to throw around buzz words like "feedback" and "forcings" (not forcer, idiot) without even knowing what they mean.
Please. You demand proof, but can't provide any of your own. Don't think I didn't notice how you all of sudden dropped the "IPCC Report" being the biggest collection of climate science. Did you honestly really think that a 52 page document contained ALL there is to know about climatology? Idiot
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ah and looked up the water vapor thing and found your stupid hypothesis wanting eh? Hmmmm apology accepted.
And what the fuck constitutes proof on your stupid assed planet you lot are always doing this. You demand proof. It is supplied yet somehow dismissed. So lets find a scientific theory you accept and lets see what constitutes proof for you - of couse you wont do this - and we BOTH know why...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Wait wait wait ... what's next?
The consensus trumps a theory! Mawhahahahahahahahah!
Idiot.
Consensus is an AGREEMENT between a group of people, nothing more! LOLOLOL
Things really are backwards on your mind isn't it!
A Theory trumps a fact. God damn, I'm gonna print that out and post it in the science department.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
Last thing, then I'm done. I have better things to do than argue with a troll. Like ..... study the climate! I happen to be a climatologist you ignorant fuck.
Either way .... multiple independent sources confirm ... Including NASA ... that MORE radiation is escaping. If you are ignoring that, then you are just fucking stupid. Oh wait, we already established that.
Anyway, have a nice life idiot douche-bag.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in the galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, and it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere, regulated by sun's magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN... watch all 6 parts...on YT.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
@Blogengezer 'Beyond the ivory tower Naomi Orsekes' on google.
Don't listen to this fool he is posting the same nonsense everywhere. One looney tunes scientist is not worth puttinh the future of the planet on. FOLLOW THE PEER REVIWED SCIENCE - not Exxon propaganda and the looney right wing sheep like followers...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
What is the MATTER with people?!?!?
A tax on CO2 is literally a tax on BREATHING. Does it get any more Orwellian than THAT?!?
Are you willing to have your body's annual CO2 output evaluated by some stranger whose salary is the sole purpose of the tax which they will assess upon your very person?
CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. To criminalize CO2 is to CRIMINALIZE HUMAN LIFE.
We do not live in a Democracy, but a Hypocracy !!
beggarz 2 years ago
@beggarz no it isn't don;t be so effin retarded.
CO2 IS a pollutant - go look up the definition - a substance which in sufficient quantities causes harm to human health and/or well being.
Oh and can I just get this right - you don't believe that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation? Hmmm.... Boy right wingers are stupid...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
That's interesting. I just looked up CO2, nope, not a pollutant. CO2 absorbs long wave radiation? Where ever did you hear that? Not only does CO2 NOT absorb "long wave radiation", it is actually broken down by it. CO2 is converted to CO (carbon monoxide).
Not to mention, here's the crux of it. IF CO2 behaved the way that AGW advocates like you suggest, then why are all the climate models to date .... wrong? Why is every prediction to date been wrong?
mcdonalsuny 2 years ago
@mcdonalsuny so to re print the question - because you a dishonest 14 year old smart ass. DEFINE pollutant.
And CO2 doesnt absorb long wave radiation? 'outgoing long wave radiation wiki' google it.
And shouting that you are a pig ignorant moron is impressing no one. Oh and explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury inspite of being further from the sun. Oh and what caused 'The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum'?
The climate models UNDERESTIMATE! Fool...
Boy you are silly...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Stunned By Stupidity is an apt description of yourself.
As usual, you resort to slander to win your argument - in fact my father was the leader of the socialist party here in Canada in the 70's and 80's. So I am hardly a right winger.
However, the people trying to enslave us ARE fascists. CO2 is only a 'pollutant' because the now irrelevant EPA has designated it as such.
To declare war on CO2 is to declare war on LIFE ITSELF. Anyway, 'cap and trade' won't reduce its emission ONE BIT!!
beggarz 2 years ago
@beggarz well so I am to take it the world does not face disater because your dad was a socialist?
Stay away from Alex Jones He is insane...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Still here? You know what your problem is? You copy and paste information you find on other websites without ANY understanding of what the hell you are talking about. If you don't even understand what you are talking about, how the hell can you understand what someone else says in responce to you?
Seriously, if you don't even know the difference between a FACT and a THEORY, how can you POSSIBLY understand ANYTHING in science?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR so keep boasting about being an ignoramus and hope bluster will win it for you?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
You don't know the difference between a feedback and a forcing, yet you use them. You don't even understand what the IPCC Report says, yet you attempt to cite it. You don't understand the GHG properties of CO2 and H2O, yet you use them in argument. You don't understand what radiation is, much less LONG WAVE Radiation. You just read it some where and posted it here.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR ah so now you are claiming to know the difference between those 2 terms yet think water vapor is a forcer? Hmmmm
And I'd piss all over you from an education stand point so be VERY careful or you will make an even bigger ass hole of yourself.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Okay, it is evident you don't know what a "forcer" is ... why? Because it's called a FORCING.
Not to mention, I'd gladly put my PhD up against your 6th grade education anyday.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Unfortunately ... you still don't even know the difference between a fact and theory, so how could you know the difference between a feedback and a forcing?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I'm sorry to tell you, but you simply do not understand enough to participate in any scientific discussion. You don't have the slightest grasp on scientific procedures or principles.
Just because you "mommy" talk you AGW is real, doesn't make it so. You don't understand something, so you call the person who said it "stupid". Since you are the one who doesn't understand it, who is the stupid one?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR boy why use 3 words to make a VERY stupid point when you could use a million eh? All this stupid assed bluster and NO thats NO fucking facts or arguments, you you have the audacity to lecture me. Oh, forgot again, I am dealing with an ignorant right winger...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Of course I'm going to lecture you child. The one who thinks a theory trumps a fact. The one who doesn't know the difference between a feedback and a forcing. The one who can't comprehend that he doesn't even understand the sources he attempts to cite.
It is obvious you are just a little boy who doesn't get enough attention, so you come on here to try to argue. But because you can't understand what people are saying, you just call them stupid.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR aw bless the retard is wrong and can't take her medicine aw bless her little cotton socks. Truth hurts that much aw didums...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Should I remind you that you said a theory trumps a fact?
Wait wait wait ... who said a theory (unproven idea) trumps a fact (a proven truth) ... oh wait. That was you!
Okay. Didn't you say a theory trumps a fact? An unproven idea trumps a proven truth?
Are you simply just incapable of accepting reality?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR look ass wipe WATCH FUCKING VIDEO I POSTED then try to engage your VERY stupid brain and understand the the common use of the term is DIFFERENT from the scientific version. You are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid.
Now answer the fucking questions.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
The "scientific version". The "scientific version"? Oh yeah, just because you being a 12 year old thinks it's cool to call someone stupid, it's just because you don't understand.
Here you go. The SCIENTIFIC definition of Fact. From the Princeton University dictionary.
"an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true"
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR fucking hell you are KING SIZE bigot. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY not a fucking scientific fact idiot. DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO? Of course not - see you are retarded and like all right wingers it is someone elses fault (mine). You lost now get over yourself. And you know full fucking well that the PETM was caused by carbon either CO2 or CH4 you fucking ass wipe. It is THE event scientists look to for similarities of what is happening today. And the cretaceous was warmer than now because?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
You just proved it again. You don't know the difference between a SCIENTIFIC fact or a SCIENTIFIC theory. BTW, you do know that there is only one kind of theory right? A scientific one. Theory is a science term. Idiot.
I lost? You've yet to say ANYTHING other than "stupid".
Does your mommy know you use naughty words on youtube? Should I send her an email?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Seriously, after that BLUNDER of a statement (theory trumps fact), how can you even PRETEND that you know ANYTHING about science, much less climatology.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR you can say it a million times and each time you make yourself look more and more stupid. Tell you what why not say it again for all the world to see how bigoted you are.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Likewise, you don't understand evidence that someone provides in support of their arguments. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't invalidate it.
If I had to guess, I'd say you were ... around 12 or 13 years old. Do yourself a favor. Wait until you take some basic science courses .... even chemistry or physics ... before you come back here again.
It is really sad that someone with your complete lack of education is trying to argue science.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR right read the 4 VERY stupid posts, now lets get down to facts. We will forget you just lost ALL those arguments (some of them samefully so!). Now what caused the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum?
And why during the time of the dinosaurs, when the sun was around0.5% COOLER was the temperature of the Earth warmer than now?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Lost all those arguments? Oh RIGHT! The ones where you claim a theory trumps a fact?
Isn't it past your bed time, little boy?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR right answer the questions retard.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
What question? You didn't ask one. (boy are you stupid).
What caused the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum? Primarily, Orbital Forcings, specifically the Elmo Horizon (aka ETM2), which a 400,000 and 100,000 year cycle in the eccentric orbit of the Earth.
Too bad you just too fucking stupid to even understand that.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR yeah on what fucking planet did that happen. Now after your VERY stupid bluff your source...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
What planet? This one, moron who doesn't know the difference between a fact and theory.
I picked a source that was dumb enough for you to understand. Wikipedia.
Link:
en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Here's the thing CHILD. You have not provided a single piece of evidence, not to mention that you don't know the difference between a fact and a theory.
All you do is insult, claim you are right, ignore evidence and call people stupid.
You need to grow up. Let me guess, you are the annoying brat that stands by himself on the playground and gets your ass kicked on a weekly basis?
Ever had a girl friend? Doubt it.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR fucking hell I want you to make a complete ass of yourself and just confirm my suspicion that you think that when enough evidence is collected that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY will then become a fact. Go on say it I dare you to expose your stupidity. Go on...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Uhm. Idiot. A Theory is a theory because it has not yet been proven to be a FACT. A theory is UNPROVEN. Yes, many theories go on to become fact, but ONLY after they have been proven.
In NO WAY does a THEORY trump a FACT.
So. I ask again, does your mommy know your on youtube? Or is she passed out in the living room after whoring herself out all day?
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR I WANT THAT FRAMED.
That wins first prise as THE stupidest thing a right winger has ever said in relation to science. So let's get this right a SCIENTIFIC theory is only a theory until it becomes a fact? RIGHT?
Well I have to say I just spat my coffee all over my desk I laughed so hard.
So a SCIENTIFIC THEORY just needs more evidence and it becomes a fact.... Boy I don;t think I'm ever going to get tired of typing that hilarious statement.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
OMG. That IS what a theory is. It is an unproven idea. When a theory is proven, it becomes fact.
Let me ask you .... idiot. What DO YOU think a Fact and a Theory is? Please enlighten me.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
And please stop saying SCIENTIFIC theory. Why? BECAUSE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE ONLY KIND OF THEORY THAT EXISTS.
There is no such thing as a "non-scientific" theory.
The fact (haha, fact) that you attempt to make a distinction there shows that you truly have ZERO understanding on the subject.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR aw bless this is getting so very sad. A SCIENTIFIC theory just needs more evidence and it becomes a fact. Oh it is so jofully stupid.
Go here:
'Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory?' on you tube. NOTE IT ISN'T ABOUT CREATIONISM
Now tell me again about facts and SCIENTIFIC theories. Of perhaps you might like to admit you are a moron - a very very arrogant and stupid one.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Wait? A SCIENTIFIC theory just needs more evidence and it becomes a fact? You do realize that is PRECISELY what I said, don't you? Theory: Unproven. Fact: Proven.
Not to mention, WTF does Evolution and Creationism have to do with the discussion we are having?
Have you taken your medication today? Oh I forgot ... your crack whole mother stole it all so she could be high while she fucks strangers for money.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago
@ThrullseekR sniff sniff ah the pungent arroma of the bigot. Like I said the video had NOTHING what so ever to do with creationism. But you didn't even bother checking.
Go on ass wipe say it again say it again. people who come to this site are going to be pissing themselves at the Auzzies stupidity (and bigotry)...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Say it with me. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven. FACT: Proven. THEORY: Unproven.
Get it now? Fucking crack baby moron.
ThrullseekR 2 years ago