Ahhhh but it isn’t that simple.
No, you explained variables that not figured into the original AGW hypothesis.
I’ll stand by my statement.
You have 20 years of so called warming attributed to CO2 rise… 17 years of no rise.
Agreed. So why do you insist that CO2 is driving temperatures higher (even when it isn’t)?
But it is that simple. Yes, there are other factors that cause fluctuations. But they cause only fluctuations. They do not cause change that is indefinite for the foreseeable future if we don’t figure out how to fix it soon.Ahhhh but it isn’t that simple.
AND I think you know it.
Well there’s your problem. You’re basing it all on the original hypothesis. Scientists haven’t been using that for years. The only reason I know about the many other variables is because climate scientists have been factoring them into their data for years.
20? No. 8000? Yes.
I *literally *explained it in that exact quote you posted. If you’re just going to be intentionally difficult like this, say so now and I won’t waste my time on you anymore.
Sillier yet, is you commenting on it without reading the link.
I’d get frustrated too if I were a true believer in anthropological global warming and had to explain it to an educated person.
17 years not following the AGW hypothesis is NOT a fluctuation. It’s a major fail.
They would not have if it hadn’t been for skeptics pointing out the flaws in their hypothesis. They are only trying to give excuses why the hypothesis has failed to produce.
Debate the graphs - so far you have offered NO support for your claims. I would have to give it way more cred than you?
Ha ha ha ha!
) are definitely concerned about global warming because they have had direct experience with its effect.Or kids!
We have evidence of NOAA - NASA - CRU - IPCC falsifying / tampering data.
Much of the information I base my position on is supplied by those very organizations. The fact that I can read and dissimulate information is hardly cause to use the term “conspiracy enthusiast”. Pointing out the fact that many of the claims made by anthropological global warming worshippers conflict with observed and recorded climate history does not make one a “denier”, it just makes them aware.
With backing like that you’d think you could offer concrete proof of your claims.We are so lucky to have SamH and kimmielittle here. Two people that understand global warming more then the American Meteorological Society, Scientific American, National Geographic and EVERY legitimate scientific organization in the world!!!
We should send them to NASA and the American Meteorological Society to educate those thousands of silly scientists!
I wonder why thousands of scientist have signed the Heidelberg Appeal. A document decrying “an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development.”
You mean the photos of Antarctica’s ice shelf growing?
