No, it is clear that you are now a coward, as I pointed out that was a starting point, the scientists continue to follow what Plass reported, you need to debunk what they report.
As the brazil nut has me in his stupid ignore list, it has to be pointed that I replied many times to his water vapor issue, the fun thing is that because he has me on ignore he never learns…
Well, you know already about willful ignorance.
I doubt that there are any warmists who are willing to submit to detailed substantive questioning about their position.
And that is boiler plate creationist talk, in reality the brazil nut will never dare to publish his “work” to face peer review, so claims of “victory” in message boards will have to do.
“Warmists”? LOL, that’s a new one. FYI, you denying it doesn’t make global warming any less real, so either you’re fooling yourself or you’re a fool, yourself.
It certainly seems so. But to be the Devil’s Advocate, I do think there are organized and highly motivated people with a lot of money, who do indeed attack and try to destroy any real effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
The movement to reduce fossil fuels is a direct threat to incredibly powerful and ruthless interest who do not want any decrease in their profits, and certainly are capable of messing with anyone who actually seems to be competing with them.
And the issue of the oceans is real, no climate change needed. As far as we know, if the CO2 levels keep increasing, and it is a direct result of immense fossil fuel burning, we are changing the Ph of the world’s oceans. Life can adapt of course, but a rapid change may lead to harmful results, and this needs to be dealt with.
Currently it is nothing compared to the more mundane but destructive activities that are killing coral reefs with abandon.
Oh great. I killed another thread.
Facts, logic, reason. The death of any internet discussion.
???
??? It appears there’s no difficulty in “setting forth” on my part, but “reading comprehension” on yours fucktard. Nice rhetorical flourish though. Keep saying something, eventually the gullible will believe it?
Your “two” questions were addressed in my first post. The third one ( Seriously, you can’t count to three?) was nothing I had mentioned. You want to address it? Please feel free. Gigobuster’s already done a nice job discrediting that, so please, be my guest and go there cuntlicious.
Nice one, Chuckles – looks like you can’t answer a couple simple yes or no questions about your position. All you had to do was provide a couple simple yes or no answers, but you couldn’t do it.
Just like Gigobuster, you have little or no actual understanding of the scientific and philosophical issues so you rely on cutting and pasting.
Anyway, I’m not going to ask again – I have no interest in engaging with people who hide their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.
Goodbye, fucktard.
[quote=“sylmar, post:210, topic:666440”]
So a theory is disproven if you can’t exactly predict the consequences Bee? Well, guess that trashes evolution completely.
It’s getting boring providing all the cites and having you go poo poo over them without any factual attempt at rebuttal cupcake ( Hint - Being an ass isn’t the same thing).
QUOTE]
So if someone can’t predict specific global warming events, the theory is discredited, unless other accepted theories that don’t meet that expectation are brought up?
Wow… You are talented at talking out of both sides of your mouth Brazzers.
What’s that called ? Ambi-ventriliquism? Or does FX have both his hands and his head up your ass now?
“the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change”
Is there a theory that explains how this has happened?
What is the theory, and where is it defined, explained, whatever you want to call it.
What predictions does the theory (or whatever name you use) say about changes, so that evidence can be presented to confirm.
Does the AGW theory (or whatever you use to name it) predict feedback from water vapor? How will the scientific world know if this is occurring?
What is the science behind the prediction?
Those are the questions being asked, which obviously are being ignored by the cocksure alarmists insisting it is happening.
What is “it”? Obviously skepticalscience.com has no page explaining this. Or we would see it spammed over and over by Gigobuster.
If you use a term, and make claims, you are required to explain what you mean.
Don’t be bashful Brazil86’d, go ahead and preach it about the “vapors”. It can’t make anyone think you any less intelligent than they already believe you.
Well actually… hold that thought and let me get a baseline.
Gigobuster, has Brazzers always been this stupid, or is this some record setting jag he’s on?
It’s the lack of clear speaking, and scientific explanations that is sickening.
No other branch of science suffers as badly from this sort of communication problem.
Ah, so you can only read “yes” and “no” replies to your questions pooky. My sincerest apologies for throwing actually sentences with easily found cites at you.
Once you reach the point of name calling it’s pretty much over.
Cloak of ambiguity… is that a +1 or +2 for armor proficiency?
It was pretty much over from your first post sweetie. All that was left to determine was how big of a moron you’d seem.
Altering quotes to promote the appearance of people agreeing with you? Pretty big moron.
Don’t forget to turn out the light…
Once you reach the point of calling names, you are pretty much done. If anyone takes you seriously after watching you act like a spoiled child, with a potty mouth, well, that makes them losers as well.
Hell, just because I responded to such nonsense make me a loser as well.
FX
Please explain to me the theory about how babies are made. Now you can’t use that whole mommy and daddy love each other thing isn’t it because people are having babies without having sex (artifical insemination), plus there was this sheep that was made that had a mommy but no daddy. Also I understand there is some controversy about the exact methodology of blastocyst formation.
Thus until you tell me the theory of human reproduction I will conclude that the biologists who think sex leads to pregnancy don’t know what they are talking about.
You go right ahead. Let us know how that works out for you.