Milton Banana wrote:
Oh my!! Must have hit a nerve.
Ignorance is always a problem.
You site a bunch of old science from the 1800's?
Yes, science which is still being supported by new data.
Oh good Christ who is supposed think that is relevant?
Anyone with an modicum of intelligence.
I think modern techniques have a much better grasp on science. Toward that end....
You do not think very much do you?
No warming for the last 18 years.
Not really accurate, but that is not unusual with your posts.
No warming for the last 18 years according to satellite temperature data. Which gives us voluminous data around the clock and calendar.
And you believe that data after it is so heavily manipulated? I suspect you have no clue as to how the satellite measurements work, but I do wonder how you reconcile the fact that it supports the ground based measurement temperature trends you so often claim are too heavily manipulated or even fabricated. Is it that easy fro your position to be hypocritical?
No warming for the last 18 years with rising CO2 levels according to Mauna Loa Observatory. Something is not right here.
My vote would be your understanding of the science.
I know its impossible for you to look through your religious veils to see the truth. From 1940 to 1980 temperature fell while CO2 rose.
Particulate emissions rose during that time as well. The temperature is affected by other variables, but you either want to ignore them or claim they are more important based on the particular point you are trying to make.
Your hypothesis is not plausible.
Actually it has made it to the level of a scientific theory since it has not been falsified since the 1800's when it was first presented.
So, for 58 years of the last 100 temperatures have not gone up while CO2 has risen at a dramatic rate. To believe that CO2 is responsible for warming with these facts presented represents a huge leap of faith.
Not really, it is a leap of understanding of the science and facts, which for you could be a very huge leap given your exhibited level of understanding.
A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable, or without empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety.
Yup, sound like exactly what goes on here by the Warmunists.
Clearly you are more ignorant or more willful in spreading misinformation and lies than previously suspected. The Green House Effect is tangible and provable. The impact on that effect by changing the concentration of the gases responsible is also tangible and provable. There is also empirical evidence to support the theory, some of which you claim is false while also claiming the similar evidence is "golden" when it suits your agenda.
What does it say about a position when the hypocritical use and presentation of data is an integral part?