TERB In Need of a Banner
Toronto Escorts

Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
The article in Nature actually ended the debate. Since then you, Johnny, and MF have been punching yourselves in the face with attacks on the scientific method and the top scientific journal. Random kook sites on the net are not valid sources, not even if you like the idiotic things they say.
So is that your response to another opinion on the subject, that I linked for you,...or just simply more of the same childish insults.

You repeatedly prove how simple minded you are,...your discredited nature magazine disagrees with the science in the link I provided you,.,,, no shit you fucking idiot,...did your child like mind really expect anything else.

And YOU get to pronounce what "sites on the net are valid",... you really should seek professional help,... living in a world of your own making,...is not normal
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
So is that your response to another opinion on the subject, that I linked for you,...or just simply more of the same childish insults.

You repeatedly prove how simple minded you are,...your discredited nature magazine disagrees with the science in the link I provided you,.,,, no shit you fucking idiot,...did your child like mind really expect anything else.

And YOU get to pronounce what "sites on the net are valid",... you really should seek professional help,... living in a world of your own making,...is not normal
There's no point in debating with somebody who is so fucking stupid they think claiming Nature is not a credible source is a valid argument. You refuted yourself with that claim.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
The article in Nature actually ended the debate. Since then you, Johnny, and MF have been punching yourselves in the face with attacks on the scientific method and the top scientific journal.
OMG! Now, Fuji is claiming that anyone who challenges his claim that man-made global "cooling" is a verified fact is attacking the scientific method?

That's hilarious.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,354
6,468
113
Actually you would be the joke,...you claimed that ALL of the CO2 in the atmosphere,...all .04% of it,...is responsible for the supposed increase in the planets temperature.

You do realise that if we,... as use suggest, remove all of the CO2 in the atmosphere,...we would all die,...so I do worry about the .04% of the atmosphere that is CO2.

So one more time basketcase,...CO2 is actually important to human life.
You have quite the imagination (but we already knew that).

CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. We've known that for almost 200 years. CO2 is a concern because it's the only greenhouse gas which we have a direct and significant ability to control and it is unequivocal that an increase in greenhouse gas will result in an increased global temperature. The only scientific question is how much impact it will have.


And yes, we need CO2. The greenhouse effect is needed to keep the world habitable but a change from the current levels will have negative repercussions.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
One can only hope,...

There's no point in debating with somebody who is so fucking stupid they think claiming Nature is not a credible source is a valid argument. You refuted yourself with that claim.
Is that a promise or a threat,...either way,...you can STFU responding to my posts any time.

You don't debate fuji,...you post childish insults,...that's NOT debating.

You don't debate fuji,...your debating is simply referring to some nature magazine,...that's NOT debating.

You don't debate fuji,...you haven't had an original thought in your life,...you are NOT capable of debating.

You don't debate fuji,...not responding to another opinion from a link on the climate from some one who is actually knowledgeable,...is not debating.

You don't debate fuji,...debating with somebody who is so fucking stupid that they think claiming Nature magazine is a credible source,...and no other source can be.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
There is no doubt that CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet.
Because you say so
We have been down this road before
Fuji, your say so is not worth shit

We know the exact amount of warming per square foot it's causing. The Nature study measured it.
They estimated it, using measurements and extrapolation
What do you think they meant when they said "Statistically significant" ?

Arguing against a simple fact like that makes you as dumb as FAST.
Claiming you are 100% absolute correct when discussing a scientific theory just shows your arrogance and ignorance

You still have yet to address the following question
So explain to us under what scenario "beyond any mathematically plausible doubt" does not equate to 100% absolute certainty?
You have already said 100% absolute certainty is not possible
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Kooky. Arguing against Nature is just punching yourself in the face. Your guy was rejected because his work wasn't sufficiently good quality and he's bitter.
All scientific experiments must be reproducible! When science experimental is not reproducible then it is garbage and must be retracted from the scientific journals!

Examples1: On March 23, 1989, Fleischmann (then one of the world's leading electrochemists) and Pons reported their work via a press release[2] from the University of Utah (who asserted ownership of the technology)[2] claiming that the table-top apparatus had produced anomalous heat (understood as "excess" heat) of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes, which later came to be referred to as "cold fusion".[3] In addition to the results from calorimetry, they further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[4] The reported results received wide media attention,[1] and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[5]

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[6] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead.
So in example1 cold fusion experiments was proven not reproducible so base on core principle of science that experiments result must be reproducible since it wasn't reproducible it was scientists of cold fusion is dead!! Which is the correct result!!


Cold fusion experiments Fleischmann and Pons they claimed they created cold fusion. Later Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment.

Examples 2: Mann hockey stick not reproducible ! Nature refused to retracted Mann Hockey stick from their journal!

Example 3: what I just posted on post # 421

So you can go punched yourself in your face!! Refusing to accept logic and then claim victory is typically Fuji crazy logic!!
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
OMG! Now, Fuji is claiming that anyone who challenges his claim that man-made global "cooling" is a verified fact is attacking the scientific method?

That's hilarious.
Keep on lying. You lost the actual debate so not that's your only way forward: lie and debate straw men.

You are a sore loser.

I accused Johnny of attacking the scientific method because he started blathering about statistical significance as though the result in Nature being statistically significant somehow left him room to claim it wasn't proven. That's an attack on the scientific method.

As for you lying about global cooling, you started on that lie when you realized you had lost the debate on CO2 causing global warming. YOU started on the cooling did all I did was refuse to answer your question.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Because you say so
We have been down this road before
Fuji, your say so is not worth shit


They estimated it, using measurements and extrapolation
What do you think they meant when they said "Statistically significant" ?



Claiming you are 100% absolute correct when discussing a scientific theory just shows your arrogance and ignorance

You still have yet to address the following question
So explain to us under what scenario "beyond any mathematically plausible doubt" does not equate to 100% absolute certainty?
You have already said 100% absolute certainty is not possible
You don't seem to have any point. You're not disputing that the Nature study proved that CO2 is warming the planet. I don't see any reason to entertain you desperate hope thatv the phrase statistical significance gets you out of jail.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
You don't seem to have any point. You're not disputing that the Nature study proved that CO2 is warming the planet. I don't see any reason to entertain you desperate hope thatv the phrase statistical significance gets you out of jail.
You do not get it
the issue is you are taking results which have been extrapolated and you are claiming them to be absolute 100% correct
At best they support a certain degree of confidence that CO2 may be warming the planet

The issue is not nature , it is your misrepresentation of their findings (for the tenth time !)

And for the fourth time you have not addressed the direct question

So explain to us under what scenario "beyond any mathematically plausible doubt" does not equate to 100% absolute certainty?
You have already said 100% absolute certainty is not possible

The reason you are avoiding this question as it will highlight you really do not know understand scientific research
As such you should stick to renegotiating NAFTA
How's that going?

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
You do not get it
the issue is you are taking results which have been extrapolated and you are claiming them to be absolute 100% correct
At best they support a certain degree of confidence that CO2 may be warming the planet

The issue is not nature , it is your misrepresentation of their findings (for the tenth time !)

And for the fourth time you have not addressed the direct question

So explain to us under what scenario "beyond any mathematically plausible doubt" does not equate to 100% absolute certainty?
You have already said 100% absolute certainty is not possible

The reason you are avoiding this question as it will highlight you really do not know understand scientific research
As such you should stick to renegotiating NAFTA
How's that going?

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap
Nope, the study proved that CO2 is warming the planet.

Period.

You just look fucking stupid denying that.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
As for you lying about global cooling, you started on that lie when you realized you had lost the debate on CO2 causing global warming. YOU started on the cooling did all I did was refuse to answer your question.
Bullshit. You have been posting for more than a year that water vapour feedback -- the dominant greenhouse gas -- has a "reducing" effect on the Earth's temperature:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546249&viewfull=1#post5546249

You then claimed in post 440 that my responses to that idiocy are somehow an attack on the scientific method (as if Fuji actually knows anything about the scientific method).

Explain your thinking.

How did you determine that posts that challenge your statements about man-made global cooling constitute an attack on the scientific method?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Just for fun, let's review how the champion of man-made global "cooling" has responded to my criticisms of his posts.

First, he tried to defend his statements about the "cooling" effect of water vapour feedback by incorrectly lifting (without attribution) some sentences from an article by climatologist Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth : https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...a-Scam!-quot&p=5876141&viewfull=1#post5876141

When that didn't work, he tried to bullshit his way out of it by claiming that his statements on cooling weren't about water vapour feedback.

When that didn't work, he went into full liar mode and started claiming that he "never" said anything about water vapour feedback "reducing" the temperature.

And yet, as far back as May 2016, we find quotes like this one:

Fuji said:
Again, that is the NET effect of man made CO2. If water vapour feedback were reducing it that would net out.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546249&viewfull=1#post5546249

:biggrin1:
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,788
3,912
113
Whatever happened to Frankfooter??
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Nope, the study proved that CO2 is warming the planet.

Period.

You just look fucking stupid denying that.
Nope it did not
Take some science courses if you are going to pretend to be knowledgeable about scientific issues

And for the fifth time you have not answered the direct question

So explain to us under what scenario "beyond any mathematically plausible doubt" does not equate to 100% absolute certainty?
You have already said 100% absolute certainty is not possible

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Whatever happened to Frankfooter??
Going a bit off subject here,...but anyway, I told him that if he kept supporting terrorists, he would be getting a loud surprise guest appearance from a certain government agency at 4:00 AM.

Haven't heard from him since.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts