Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Where is the evidence that he is wrong, do you have proof that changes in the climate are caused by mans activities?

the chemical make-up of the greenhouse gases themselves...refined fuels versus earthen fuels....but...you have to believe in science, so it's not accepted here on ATS....

Nice drive-by. How about some data?

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!

As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.

As to grammatical errors yeah thats on topic. You lefties are such hypocrites.

What is being cited by the vast majority of scientists is the result of observation and analysis of the data by highly trained individuals. What you have presented is opinion. I was merely pointing out the irony in the nature of your presentation.
Polish it up and you might wish to present a paper at the next climate conference. You know...or not.

Still parroting the consensus myth? That has been debunked long ago.
www.populartechnology.net...
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

You might want to investigate your source. And consider the difference between a 'denier' and a 'skeptic'.
And I am very skeptical of deniers.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Where is the evidence that he is wrong, do you have proof that changes in the climate are caused by mans activities?

the chemical make-up of the greenhouse gases themselves...refined fuels versus earthen fuels....but...you have to believe in science, so it's not accepted here on ATS....

What is the chemical makeup of greenhouse gasses themselves? Please explain.

Refined fuels versus earthern fuels you say? Can you expand upon that?

Science isn't something that you 'believe in', you seem to have religion confused with the scientific method.

But yes, nice drive by, good attempt at making yourself look intelligent, but it was a fail.

a reply to: UKTruth

True,
but my point was that it was leaning towards a natural cause, rather than man-made.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!

As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.

As to grammatical errors yeah thats on topic. You lefties are such hypocrites.

What is being cited by the vast majority of scientists is the result of observation and analysis of the data by highly trained individuals. What you have presented is opinion. I was merely pointing out the irony in the nature of your presentation.
Polish it up and you might wish to present a paper at the next climate conference. You know...or not.

Still parroting the consensus myth? That has been debunked long ago.
www.populartechnology.net...
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

You might want to investigate your source. And consider the difference between a 'denier' and a 'skeptic'.
And I am very skeptical of deniers.

Lotta different sources at that link, pick one article and dispute it?
Lets debate?
Better yet, why don't you post the actual Cook et al paper where the garbage consensus came from?
Have you ever read it?
Do you have the ability to even find it online and post it here?

They control the weather.

Climate change is just another tool for TPTB to divide us.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!

As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.

As to grammatical errors yeah thats on topic. You lefties are such hypocrites.

What is being cited by the vast majority of scientists is the result of observation and analysis of the data by highly trained individuals. What you have presented is opinion. I was merely pointing out the irony in the nature of your presentation.
Polish it up and you might wish to present a paper at the next climate conference. You know...or not.

Still parroting the consensus myth? That has been debunked long ago.
www.populartechnology.net...
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

You might want to investigate your source. And consider the difference between a 'denier' and a 'skeptic'.
And I am very skeptical of deniers.

Lotta different sources at that link, pick one article and dispute it?
Lets debate?
Better yet, why don't you post the actual Cook et al paper where the garbage consensus came from?
Have you ever read it?
Do you have the ability to even find it online and post it here?

You might want to cool your jets a mite. I've done my search, and found all I need to know. You might want to dig a little deeper into the source material, where you find the funders of the denial research. And the repudiation by researchers of their material being cherry-picked and used out of context by deniers.
I also know that intelligent debate is not your end game here. So, find your echo chamber and go nuts.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Where is the evidence that he is wrong, do you have proof that changes in the climate are caused by mans activities?

the chemical make-up of the greenhouse gases themselves...refined fuels versus earthen fuels....but...you have to believe in science, so it's not accepted here on ATS....

Nice drive-by. How about some data?

nope, I don't do that anymore here on ATS....why?.....because it's not a question of the "data" being out there, it's a matter of believing what the data tells you.....like trump, if he would have included the rest of the world, and known the difference between weather and climate, he would have found that the southwest has had record-breaking warmer weather this winter, as has the rest of the world.....

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Just as I thought, not capable of finding the Cook et al paper, posting it here for our discussion and debate. Carry on.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Is there any point you would just refute the source or data.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: UKTruth
True,
but my point was that it was leaning towards a natural cause, rather than man-made.

Of course it's natural cause ...

Just think about it for a while ... the Universe is made of billions of galaxy clausers, which holds billions of galaxies, that hold billions of stars ... each star has numerous planets around it, and one type of star is bigger than the other ... our little star, here, we call sun ... is one of the smallest. And in our solar system, man ... is a mere speck ... he's a grain of sand.

Thinking that "I" can change anything in the Universe ... wow!

It's "religion" in new cloathing ... you remember that statement "God created man in his own image". That's human lunacy, claiming that man IS god or godlike.

Instead of arguing semantics with members of "the Holy church of human ego", I think we should focus on what mechanics could be at work. Somebody mentions 10 and 90 years cycles of the sun. There is a north pole, a magnetic pole and a celestial pole of the earth. There is magnetic inclination of earth vs. the sun magnetic field. And then we have the inner earth, magma flow that causes changes in earths crust, and ultimately in the underwater sea currents ... that are primarily the cause for the current that cause the increase in temperature of the north atlantic. The magnetic north pole, causes difference in how radiation flow away from the earth is and thus affects the less cooling in the northern atmosphere.

etc.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Is there any point you would just refute the source or data.

Not like that is hard to do with the Cook et al paper lmao. It's a joke, and most everyone that ACTUALLY reads it agrees.

Have you read it?

Can you even find it and post a link to the actual paper that is responsible for the consensus nonsense?

If you alarmists are going to go banging on about a supposed consensus, why are you not capable of providing the source of your claims?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!

As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.

As to grammatical errors yeah thats on topic. You lefties are such hypocrites.

What is being cited by the vast majority of scientists is the result of observation and analysis of the data by highly trained individuals. What you have presented is opinion. I was merely pointing out the irony in the nature of your presentation.
Polish it up and you might wish to present a paper at the next climate conference. You know...or not.

Still parroting the consensus myth? That has been debunked long ago.
www.populartechnology.net...
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

You might want to investigate your source. And consider the difference between a 'denier' and a 'skeptic'.
And I am very skeptical of deniers.

Lotta different sources at that link, pick one article and dispute it?
Lets debate?
Better yet, why don't you post the actual Cook et al paper where the garbage consensus came from?
Have you ever read it?
Do you have the ability to even find it online and post it here?

You might want to cool your jets a mite. I've done my search, and found all I need to know. You might want to dig a little deeper into the source material, where you find the funders of the denial research. And the repudiation by researchers of their material being cherry-picked and used out of context by deniers.
I also know that intelligent debate is not your end game here. So, find your echo chamber and go nuts.

i'm with you, but all the data in the world won't make a difference if people do not believe it......they are just following the trump doctrine...."if it doesn't fit with your own preconceived beliefs, then it's fake news"

a reply to: jimmyx

Ok. I will ask one more alarmist. Can you find and post a link to the Cook et al paper that is responsible for starting the consensus nonsense? 2 out of 2 alarmists so far cannot perform such a simple task, it really makes me question the research skills that are available to them.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Just as I thought, not capable of finding the Cook et al paper, posting it here for our discussion and debate. Carry on.

I'm sorry...jumping through your hoops would represent a waste of time and bandwidth. Go back to your echo chamber.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

At work so I can't but as I said you will not accept any data or science you have demonstrated that so far.
But do continue using blogs to support your data while asking for peer reviewed studies for everyone elses evidence.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You can't argue with members of the Pagan "populism" religions.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

If you alarmists are going to go banging on about a supposed consensus, why are you not capable of providing the source of your claims?

I wonder why Watts has not updated that chart.

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

a reply to: Phage

Mic drop boom.
I love you Phage lol.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Since Watts included UAH data, here's Dr. Spencer's data. I've often wondered why Anthony Watt's chart (with UAH data) does not seem to show the El Nino spike of 1998.