This little clip summarises how climate activists use stats and "research" to prove that CO2 causes global warming.

"Correlation is not causation".

 

Beautiful!

 

 

Ah...brokenbone the master of climate science and false syllogism. 
I have to conclude that 97% of the world's scientists are wrong and he is right?
Yet according to his post he doesn't even understand the principles of elementary school science .... Bit of an oxymoron there?

Another mind-numbed robot regurgitating the 97% lie.

Shocking

Have you noticed how there are hardly any jokes about the reality of climate change but loads about MMCC deniers? Maybe climate deniers cant think of one or draw?
 
 
 

Or maybe the left owns 97% of entertainment media.

Double post

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

This little clip summarises how climate activists use stats and "research" to prove that CO2 causes global warming.

"Correlation is not causation".

 

Beautiful!

 

 

there is also the reverse fact causation, the eco-anxiety brigade

often brings up how co2 levels causes more natural disasters

like wildfires, tornados etc, but data show that during 1900 to 2000,

weather has become less extreme in the latter half.

out of 15 level 4 or higher tornados, only 3 came after 1960,

and those 3 occurred 1960-1969.

using eco-anxiety logic, you could then argue that co2

is the salvation versus natural disaster,

or, low atmospheric co2 levels causes natural disasters

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-2001-3.pdf

Its quite funny reading posys on here trying to discredit the settled science.

 

Consensus was reached by about 1200 of the most eminent climate scientists who studied all the for and against.

 

But tv posters know better. 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Its quite funny reading posys on here trying to discredit the settled science.

 

Consensus was reached by about 1200 of the most eminent climate scientists who studied all the for and against.

 

But tv posters know better. 

if you by now after the latest revelations how the 'consensus' was

made up by flawed statistics and biased cherry picking,

then you either dont want or cant interpret basic statistics,

much like the enthusiastic amateurs that made it in the first instance

'low atmospheric co2 levels causes natural disasters'

 

Deforestation certainly makes things like floods worse. CO2 aids the greening and should, if the overflowing population doesn't destroy everything under their feet, help a bit. 

43 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I hereby make claim the argument that no jokes of climate change exist false. Leno with his lovely classic car collection is aiding the beneficial CO2-ification of the planet, too, good dude. 

32 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its quite funny reading posys on here trying to discredit the settled science.

 

Consensus was reached by about 1200 of the most eminent climate scientists who studied all the for and against.

 

But tv posters know better. 

Here, how settled science works.

 

43 minutes ago, Sujo said:

But tv posters know better. 

I am quite ignorant, but i have a 6th sense for bs.

I trust more brokenbone, rabas, forethat and dr.tuner than any newspaper, at least i'm reasonably sure that they are not paid to divulge fake news.

Its quite funny reading posys on here trying to discredit the settled science.
 
Consensus was reached by about 1200 of the most eminent climate scientists who studied all the for and against.

But tv posters know better. 

All of them making a living off climate change.

Do you have a link to the consensus or is this just another mindless regurgitation like the 97% lie?

It's pitiful that some don't realise that intelligent comment on climate denial is an oxymoron.

Don't even realise how silly those shortfalls on interpretation of the facts are ......

 

Probably don't know what Dunning Kruger is either.

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

if you by now after the latest revelations how the 'consensus' was

made up by flawed statistics and biased cherry picking,

then you either dont want or cant interpret basic statistics,

much like the enthusiastic amateurs that made it in the first instance

If you have credentials to question the consensus im sure you sent them in for consideration.

 

If not, then its just hot air.

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

If you have credentials to question the consensus im sure you sent them in for consideration.

 

If not, then its just hot air.

yes i do, unlike the enthusiastic amateurs like john cook & maggie zimmerman,

which came up with the consensus theory,

i have education in interpreting graphs and analyze data

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I am quite ignorant, but i have a 6th sense for bs.

I trust more brokenbone, rabas, forethat and dr.tuner than any newspaper, at least i'm reasonably sure that they are not paid to divulge fake news.

Too funny. You trust anonymous tv posters but not the most eminent climate scientists who put their name to it for and against. ????

Just now, brokenbone said:

yes i do, unlike the enthusiastic amateurs like john cook & maggie zimmerman,

i have education in interpreting graphs and analyze data

So did the UN and Nasa give u a call to present your findings? Or are you just am also ran.

52 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

All of them making a living off climate change.

Do you have a link to the consensus or is this just another mindless regurgitation like the 97% lie?

 

Care to read their report?

Just now, Sujo said:

So did the UN and Nasa give u a call to present your findings? Or are you just am also ran.

its embarrassing for me, on NASAs behalf, that they didnt bother to check

their reference. either that, or they are just happy to get funding and dont care for dignity

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Too funny. You trust anonymous tv posters but not the most eminent climate scientists who put their name to it for and against. ????

Aren't you the one who keeps repeating "the science is settled" ?

Never heard something funnier on this thread

What I would seriously like to see, is a test. IT is very easy to get up somewhere and say words. 

 

I do not have anything against her, but would she sacrifice significantly for the betterment of the earth? If yes, then hats off! But the truth is, most of us will not, and I doubt she would be an exception honestly. 

Care to read their report?

No, I just want you to either substantiate your claim or quit lying.

So did the UN and Nasa give u a call to present your findings? Or are you just am also ran.

What study has NASA done that would support any of your claims?

Yes, most everyone agrees the Earth is warming, but that is about the end of the consensus.

1 hour ago, illiterate said:

What I would seriously like to see, is a test. IT is very easy to get up somewhere and say words. 

Yeah, I mentioned this before. Create another earth, complete with all the life on it and pump it full of CO2 to see what happens. Also good practise for terraforming once we conquer new planets.

 

Other than that, CO2 being the major driver of climate change is just an unproven theory. I won't be holding my breath while waiting for the test results.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Too funny. You trust anonymous tv posters but not the most eminent climate scientists who put their name to it for and against. ????

Well, isn't that the whole point? 10,257 scientists were asked to put their name to a theory which supported the view that global warming is caused by human production of CO2.

 

77 did.

 

But you posit that 97% of them did.

 

I really don't know what to say here...

Off-topic posts reported and removed.  

 

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

Well, isn't that the whole point? 10,257 scientists were asked to put their name to a theory which supported the view that global warming is caused by human production of CO2.

 

77 did.

 

But you posit that 97% of them did.

 

I really don't know what to say here...

As it is apparent that @Bluespunk is confused, let me refer back to the post where I dissected the alleged 97% support for the view that global warming is caused by human production of CO2.

 

Let me know your level of confusion and I'll be happy to provide further help.

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

As it is apparent that @Bluespunk is confused, let me refer back to the post where I dissected the alleged 97% support for the view that global warming is caused by human production of CO2.

 

Let me know your level of confusion and I'll be happy to provide further help.

Oh I’m not confused, it’s just the emoji most indicative of how I feel about man made climate change deniers. Though I will admit the desperation of deniers in the face of evidence is a puzzler. 

57 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Oh I’m not confused, it’s just the emoji most indicative of how I feel about man made climate change deniers. Though I will admit the desperation of deniers in the face of evidence is a puzzler. 

Though you failed to provide an ounce of evidence to support your case? The way I did....? Instead, you simply screamed "liar", basket of deplorables" and "climate change denier"

 

All in an attempt to question an alleged 'desperate denial' of the "0.07% evidence".

 

Just sayin'.

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

Though you failed to provide an ounce of evidence to support your case? The way I did....? Instead, you simply screamed "liar", basket of deplorables" and "climate change denier"

 

All in an attempt to question an alleged 'desperate denial' of the "0.07% evidence".

 

Just sayin'.

Already said my piece earlier in thread.

 

Including pointing out misquoting of Carl Wunsch.

 

Provided evidence of this that was ignored...

Never called anyone a liar or a basket of anything as far as I recall. Please back up these allegations.