1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '19 17:49
    @wildgrass said
    Arguments can be specious but theories cannot.

    Your alternative theory, that natural causes can explain all global warming phenomena, is demonstrably less accurate than the currently accepted one.

    The absence of a correlation does not a theory debunk.
    I never said natural causes can explain "all" global warming. Stop misquoting me.

    You are continually digressing away from the purpose of this thread. Prove your assertions with sea level rise. All you are doing is spreading unproven gossip.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '19 17:51
    @humy said
    You keep make assertions without evidence like this one. We can then validly dismiss them. How do you KNOW there is "no evidence" of this when you have repeatedly shown ignorance of the relevant sciences that imply there is evidence? Who do you expect we will believe? Your opinion, given you clearly are NOT an expert on it? Or the relevant science and the relevant scientists that disagree with you? You will convince nobody here.
    My assertion is there is a lack of evidence and there is. You have never proven there is evidence of your assertion. You are repeating false gossip. That is all you are capable of.
  3. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    15 Feb '19 19:23
    @metal-brain said
    I never said natural causes can explain "all" global warming. Stop misquoting me.

    You are continually digressing away from the purpose of this thread. Prove your assertions with sea level rise. All you are doing is spreading unproven gossip.
    Since it's a valid theory then we don't need to prove it again using your weird correlative analysis.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '19 21:381 edit
    @wildgrass said
    Since it's a valid theory then we don't need to prove it again using your weird correlative analysis.
    You can call it whatever you want. Nobody knows CO2 is the main cause of the warming or even contributing much to it. It is just an educated guess. You cannot prove it with certainty. What you have is faith. You can't even rule out methane as being the actual main cause so a carbon tax would be very ineffective if that is the case.

    You and humy both are making false assertions to avoid confronting the sea level issue. If you cannot prove it with that you never will and you all know it.

    This thread is about sea level rise! You are all cowards and liars!
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '19 21:50
    Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent

    https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

    0.04 % is your bogey man? Absurd!
  6. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    15 Feb '19 23:12
    @metal-brain said
    Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent

    https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

    0.04 % is your bogey man? Absurd!
    I know right. It's almost like small amounts of important things can cause large problems. I've never heard of that before.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    16 Feb '19 00:15
    @wildgrass said
    I know right. It's almost like small amounts of important things can cause large problems. I've never heard of that before.
    We all know you have heard it. It is based on the belief of a backwards cause and effect. In other words, gossip that is outright false.

    Are you even going to try to show AGW with sea level?
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    16 Feb '19 23:33
    @Metal-Brain
    It matters little what data we spot here, you just dis it, fake news, totally unsubstantiated and so forth. So what good does it do to put any proof here?
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    17 Feb '19 09:17
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    It matters little what data we spot here, you just dis it, fake news, totally unsubstantiated and so forth. So what good does it do to put any proof here?
    Data doesn't matter?
    Interesting position.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    17 Feb '19 17:01
    @Metal-Brain
    It doesn't matter to you when it refutes your ridiculous theories based on 90 year old dudes ignoring newer science.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    17 Feb '19 20:47
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    It doesn't matter to you when it refutes your ridiculous theories based on 90 year old dudes ignoring newer science.
    Example?
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    17 Feb '19 22:56
    @Metal-Brain
    We've been down this merrygoround before, you know what I am talking about.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    18 Feb '19 00:311 edit
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    We've been down this merrygoround before, you know what I am talking about.
    You mean me rejecting the heat island effect? Why do you think the heat island effect is relevant temp data? It is not. That is why sea level data is best to look at. No heat island BS.
  14. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    18 Feb '19 02:01
    @metal-brain said
    You mean me rejecting the heat island effect? Why do you think the heat island effect is relevant temp data? It is not. That is why sea level data is best to look at. No heat island BS.
    Are you implying that melting glaciers would not cause a rise in sea level?
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    18 Feb '19 15:38
    @wildgrass said
    Are you implying that melting glaciers would not cause a rise in sea level?
    No. Why in the heck would you think that? I said absolutely nothing to imply that at all.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree