You base this solely on information coming straight out of your assIt'll bounce back and there's plenty of time for research
Your theory that more carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere is a good thing because the increases in temperature will save people from "the coming ice age" is idiotic beyond reasonPad
Check your logic
If there was this window of opportunity it is to usher in and not protect you humans from the next Ice Age
And if you have your way it will just prove how very cold and insensitive the liberals really are
In your expert opinion what happens if we maintain status quo for 28 more months? 5 years?You base this solely on information coming straight out of your ass
Your premise is flawed. Most scientists do not agree on anything worth noting in the global warming debate. Your unyielding grip on a 97% created from a biased opinion study notwithstanding.Your theory that more carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere is a good thing because the increases in temperature will save people from "the coming ice age" is idiotic beyond reason
Why do you think virtually all scientists in the world wouldn't reach that same conclusion? Do you people ever ask yourselves these questions?
Just shortly after we are completely brokeIn your expert opinion what happens if we maintain status quo for 28 more months? 5 years?
What's the cutoff date until we are uninhabitable ?
Go read the IPCC's 5th report and see for yourselfIn your expert opinion what happens if we maintain status quo for 28 more months? 5 years?
What's the cutoff date until we are uninhabitable ?
The only people who believe ACC is a hoax are fringe tea party idiots who make up a fraction of a percent of the population. EVERYBODY else agrees. You are an dumbass.Your premise is flawed. Most scientists do not agree on anything worth noting in the global warming debate. Your unyielding grip on a 97% created from a biased opinion study notwithstanding.
If your premise is flawed, how can your conclusion be correct?
Can't find specifics in there. Help?Go read the IPCC's 5th report and see for yourself
Look harderCan't find specifics in there. Help?
I saw projections but they weren't real clear. Are these projections based off the same models that were shown to be flawed? And by flawed I mean less accurate in their temp projections than the farmers almanac?Look harder
So you think all the members of 34 national science academies used wrong data, either by incompetence or with malicious intent to fool people, is that it?I saw projections but they weren't real clear. Are these projections based off the same models that were shown to be flawed? And by flawed I mean less accurate in their temp projections than the farmers almanac?
Nope not at all. To be honest I don't know why the predictions were all wrong in the high side, do you?So you think all the members of 34 national science academies used wrong data, either by incompetence or with malicious intent to fool people, is that it?
those are scientific polls that measure opinion about scientific evidence, not opinion polls.You use opinion polls as scientific evidence??
that's a whopper, much like the claims i have heard about termite farts and forest fires that cause global cooling.Most scientists do not agree on anything worth noting in the global warming debate.
forest fires cause global cooling guy is now positing that AGW is a 190-years-in-the-making conspiracy.Just shortly after we are completely broke
gonna need a citation of that as well. i really would like to see which political front group this retarded talking point comes from.Are these projections based off the same models that were shown to be flawed? And by flawed I mean less accurate in their temp projections than the farmers almanac?
another claim with no citation whatsoever.the predictions were all wrong in the high side
So heckler when should we expect your noble[sic] prize to arrive? You know for using "quantum chemistry" to look at a graph thru an upside down toilet tube while masturbating with your off hand and simultaneously disproving over a hundred years of scientific knowledge about co2 absorbative[sic] properties?
there was not a SCIENTIST in that room, you unmitigated failure.That's normally how it goes, scientists telling you you're an idiot, you plugging your ears "lalalalalalala"..
Color me shocked!
"ECO-pedia!!!" SERIOUSLY???Lying dumbass;
-66% of those aged over 65 believed that climate change is caused by human actions
-by contrast, 79% of 18-34 year olds take the view that human action is responsible for climate change
-63% of those with no post-school qualifications were unconvinced about the role of humans in producing climate change
-University graduates were much more likely to take the opposite view, with 86% agreeing that human activity was responsible - See more at:
http://www.ecopedia.com/environment/demographics-climate-change-who-believes-it-is-real/#sthash.FLLdLebm.dpuf
Not that it would matter anyway because none of you denytards accept anything unless it denies ACC too, which is why you detest science so much. It's objective, and it's objectively telling you you're all a bunch of fringe morons who can't read a pie chart. As Sanders noted, in every other facet of reality you accept science, medicine, food health/safety, engineering, etc. but when it comes to climate change, the science goes out the window and it's all a HOAX!!!
If 97% of doctors told you you had cancer, you'd get chemo, and if you wouldn't you would deserve every moment of pain you received for being a dumbass.
Stop being dumbasses.
I think you have me confused with Kynes