No, I'm not reading minds dickhead slime lawyer. It's what they say. Find the nearest hard object and bash your head against it. It may dislodge the piece of shit in your brain that is making you insane. If that doesn't work, just kill yourself. What you are doing is evil.
hey fc... until I learned that there is no discernable warming outside natural variation since the industrial revolution I would have said mans activities are contributing to the warming. I probably did say it here. That is a far different statement than saying the very small fraction of of greenhouse gas that is man made co2 is causing warming. The former is a broad statement which is almost a tautology... the later is a specific statement subject to proof which currents has not proof. man made CO2 is such a tiny part of greenhouse gases there is very little chance it will have a significant effect on temperatures. Water vapor is showing to have far greater effect. And it makes sense. generally as temperatures go up air contains more water vaper and we get clouds. Clouds hold the heat in at night. The earth warms up quick the next day. It begins the famed feedback cycle.
And you are repeating lies again you fucking liar. The rate of warming is unprecedented historically and can only be explained by CO2. It is certainly not natural. Get in the garage and turn the car on and kill yourself if you're too timid to use the icepick method. You are being evil. Future generations will be cursing fuck heads like you.
LOL. I'll bet his face was red as a beet. futurecunt should be able to sue Al Gore when he blows a gasket since he's on the AGW payroll. I really don't know why he wastes his time here, though. He hasn't convinced one mind to his side. In fact, his ridiculous rants have probably lost any AGW believers who where here. Since he's just an amoral brotherfucker he probably doesn't have enough brains to understand that. The fact is: <font size=5 color=red>âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â</font> ~Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist
don't you read what we post your ignorant leftist lying tool. There is no unprecendented warming... you are just using made up bullshit words. We have been this warm in the past. It has been warmer. And now.... The MET office (you know the EAST Aglia guys... the top 2 in the "brain trust" of man made global warming scientists).... admitted the model they use to claim there is a temperature is rising outside natural variation .001 likely to be the correct model vs a model which says there is no temperature rise outside natural variation.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/201...aims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html The second paragraph gives the relative likelihood of the trending autoregressive model with respect to the driftless model. The relative likelihood is 0.08, if we analyze years 1900â2012 , and it is 0.001, if we analyze years 1850â2012 (using Met Office data). In either case, then, the trending autoregressive model is much less likely than the driftless model to be the better model of the data. Hence, the statistical model that was relied upon in the Answer to the original Question (HL3050) is untenable. Most of the third paragraph is verbiage. In particular, the cited âphysical climate modelsâ, which the Met Office runs on its supercomputer, do indeed provide some evidence for global warming. Physical climate models and statistical models are both known as âmodelsâ, but they are different things. It is only the statistical models that are relevant to the Question. The physical climate models, though impressive in many ways, do not provide observational evidence for global warming. The issue here is the claim that âthe temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significantâ, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis. Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim. That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Additionally, the Met Office needs to reassess other claims that it has made about statistically significant climatic changes. Lastly, it is not only the Met Office that has claimed that the increase in global temperatures is statistically significant: the IPCC has as well. Moreover, the IPCC used the same statistical model as the Met Office, in its most-recent Assessment Report (2007). The Assessment Report discusses the choice of model in Volume I, Appendix 3.A. The Appendix correctly acknowledges that, concerning statistical significance, âthe results depend on the statistical model usedâ. What justification does the Appendix give for c
You ever notice the liberal loons are the first to go nuts when they're caught in an invalid argument?