Expert: We must act fast on warming

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>No, we reply to people we consider to be morons, like you do, which is much the same as being a moron.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you like the pig that says wee, wee all the way home?

The sudden cooling caused by volcanoes stopped trees growing. This introducing error into tree ring temperature records, fond Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University and his colleagues, which could impact estimates of how sensitive the world's temperature is to CO2 emissions. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-MM

Oops, I am not really fond of Mann.... That was not a Froidian slip.

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Manmade global warming is established.
The only argument that matters is how much and how soon we should react. Do we f*ck ourselves with over reaction, or do we f*ck ourselves with under-reaction?
Or do we talk moron, pretending its all made up, like you do???

Only if you believe.

There is not one piece of evidence that can be applied to the scientific method to indicate man made global warming. It can't be done. I challenge you to find any aspect of man made global warming that passes that test.

To come up with man made global warming you must ignore the scientific method.

Consensus and conjecture are not science. If you had scientific evidence, you wouldn't need consensus.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you like the pig that says wee, wee all the way home?

Your lack of understanding is demonstrated by your focus on "we".

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
And what would convince you that people who "believe in" man made global warming are right, or wrong? What actual evidence would convince you?

Observational tests that comply with the scientific method. To date none exist. The tests, predictions, that have been tried, have failed.

Were you ever able to find a computer model that had correctly predicted past climate?

Screwed up Bozo wrote:

Oops, I am not really fond of Mann.... That was not a Froidian slip.

Freudian parapraxis.

PLEASE GIVE ALL indians clean affordable energy and clean water and indoors air to make longevity of compact fluorescent ligth bulbs longer and safer without any popping on expiration of bulblife---- INSTEAD OF SHORT-TERM EXPENSIVE BULBS that cost upwards of 350% higher than ordinary bulbs!! Plus we could install OUTSIDE COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHTING -----THAT IS SAFER TO INSTALL,SERVICE,and use than old-style light ing and bulbs----Then we could install lighting on all roads immediately withinthree weeks SO THAT NO CAR ACCIDENTS AND FENDER-BENDERS OCCUR OUTSIDE AT NIGHT or gloomy sun conditions !! president of india!

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Freudian parapraxis.

Jest giving you some of your own "we" medicine. You are correct, it is spelled, Freudian.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Freudian parapraxis.

Are you being a little redundant? Either call it a Freudian slip or call it a parapraxis, not a Freudian parapraxis!

It took a while, but Bozo found it eventually.
Ö¿Ö

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
More important is there anything that would convince them that they are wrong.

Evidence. Backing the conclusions of the scientists means they value the evidence. Something that never occurs to you because you REJECT evidence in favor of 'ignorant opinion'.

Earthling-1 wrote:

It took a while, but Bozo found it eventually.
Ö¿Ö

Poor thing. The grammar and spelling expert fell short. Pitiful.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Evidence.

Where's your 'evidence' that CO2 is a thermal pollutant, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

NoFactAllHype wrote:

Backing the conclusions of the scientists means they value the evidence. Something that never occurs to you because you REJECT evidence in favo*U*r of 'ignorant opinion'.

Your ignorant opinion is that CO2 is a thermal pollutant, which it definitely isn't, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, but you're too thick and stupid to even check the science.

NB: Favor is an AmericaniZed spelling, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

Evidence like experimental test? Sorry, haven't seen any of that.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Evidence. Backing the conclusions of the scientists means they value the evidence. Something that never occurs to you because you REJECT evidence in favor of 'ignorant opinion'.

Funny, I could say the same about you. Funny thing about some of your "evidence" is that it was found to be work of fiction. The worse you can claim about my evidence is that the research was paid for be Exxon.

Funny thing as well, as there is many climate scientist who have publically published in peer reviewed publications that climate change is natural. So who has the "ignorant opinion"? The one who "evidence" was found to be fiction or the one where the worse you can come up with is that it was paid for by private funding instead of the goverment. Who is the one is "reject evidence" in the favor of "ignorant opinion"?

Not me sir, no me.

Act fast, attention doesn't last.

Brian_G wrote:

Act fast, attention doesn't last.

Your attention span is not at issue.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>

Not me sir, no me.

With just a cursory glance i detect an inconsistency...:-)

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Your attention span is not at issue.

Now you're getting it; I contend attention span is the primary reason "we must act fast". Human nature is another argument against climate change mitigation.