Check out the sensitivity analysis on the IPCC models. Then review our current understanding of the most sensitive variable in the models. If you still fail to see an issue, then perhaps you are the one not taking science seriously.
How about posting a link to your information that would explain why I should discount 200 years of scientific study and research? I'm certain you didn't do this all on your own, so, just point me to the articles you read that convinced you practically all of climate scientists are wrong on this. One or two would be fine.
You need a link to find the IPCC reports? Lol
says the guy who argues against basic grade school science
i think he would prefer a link to the wordpress blog written by some out of work, right wing, former timeshare salesman trying to sell brain pills that you got your disinformation from
No, I want to talk about the same data you use. We obviously disagree about the findings so you must be reading different information or you are misinterpreting it. If we are referencing the same data set then some of your confusion will be reduced. A link isn't too hard for you to post, is it?
Sea Ice isn't a good indicator. Try something else.Climate Change Alarmists will tell you the ice is melting up north, data says otherwise (despite rising man made CO2 level increases in the past 20 years which are claimed to be responsible for global warming). Does this look like melting ice? More sea ice area now in 2019 than 2005.
IPCC audit reports basically reveal the IPCC is "fake news" of science, filled with fraud and errors.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
HadCRUT4 data set is a joke. Also largely irrelevant to gauging the impact of CO2 on the climate as the greatest warming should be occurring in the troposphere ("the big red blob" as they call it) where we use satellites and weather balloons to do measurements and we just don't see the warming the models predict. I'm happy to bet my RIU membership on the earth being far from destroyed in 12 years, lol. That said, energy conservation is still a very good thing.Climate Change Alarmists will tell you the ice is melting up north, data says otherwise (despite rising man made CO2 level increases in the past 20 years which are claimed to be responsible for global warming). Does this look like melting ice? More sea ice area now in 2019 than 2005.
IPCC audit reports basically reveal the IPCC is "fake news" of science, filled with fraud and errors.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
I'm referencing IPCC reports that identify the most sensitive variable in the models, aka sensitivity analysis. These same reports identify this variable as not being well understood. I'd be happy to link to it if you weren't such a twit. As such, go pound sand. Any modeler with common sense knows that you have a pretty shitty model when your most sensitive variable is also the least understood.
A link, plz
fine mess your "conservative" party has become.
Hey Bugs
It's comforting to hear someone fret about the deficit again.
Those sea levels must be rising only since the Trump inauguration.
i've been bragging for years about how obama lowered the deficit by over a trillion dollars, more than any other president in the history of the united states.
your party claims manmade global warming, which is settled science and beyond all dispute, a "chinese hoax"
last thing we need here is yet another bad faith, racist coddling, resentful, dumbass conservative here
