A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

It is easy.

And before you go calling anyone deluded...this entire thread should be retitled "Cullion's Delusions in re: AGW".

Two degrees with "Science" on them: Check
Original research in two branches of science: Check
Peer Accolades/Awards: Check
Published articles in professional periodicals: Check.
Agrees with mainstream consensus on AGW: Check
Done with Cullion: Check
Done with Thread: Check

Having two degrees with 'science' in them does not make you a scientist, and I do not believe that you have published peer reviewed papers in scientific journals. Your employee of the month badge does not count.

You are leaving the thread because you know this to be the case and are ashamed of having been outed as a liar.

[W. Rabbit]

Having two degrees with 'science' in them does not make you a scientist, and I do not believe that you have published peer reviewed papers in scientific journals.

That's ok dipshit, you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming either.

0-2

Seriously ************, hope you find someone else to troll out of your wittle thread.

Lord knows you can't find any actual supporters.

[Cullion]

I knew you'd be back after your nth 'I am leaving forever post'. You're like an undumpable girlfriend.

A couple of people have clearly agreed with me in this thread, but ultimately I don't need to take a vote. Is that what you come here for? to find people who will 'support' you?

I guess you need that validation, because you cannot sustain the fantasy of being a scientist without it. It's unfortunate that you're going to have to find somewhere else to do that now, what with being outed.

If you are planning to stick around, you could clear up another thing you refused to answer:

Do you support the hypothesis that increasing CO2 should lead to increasing global average temperatures, or not ?

[W. Rabbit]

A couple of people have clearly agreed with me in this thread, but ultimately I don't need to take a vote. Is that what you come here for?

Yet a few thousand scientists disagree with you. I guess you win, right? A few BS posters in your corner wins, aye?

Why did YOU come here 4 months after the last post to troll JohnnyCache? Is that what YOU came here for? Bored at work?

you cannot sustain the fantasy of being a scientist without it. It's unfortunate that you're going to have to find somewhere else to do that now, what with being outed.

In your dreams.

Off to tell all my peers in the forensic sciences that we're not scientists....too busy to follow your red herrings, dumbass.

[Cullion]

In real life, you're a data-recovery technician, aren't you?

[W. Rabbit]

In real life, you're a data-recovery technician, aren't you?

No, in real life I am officially vapor.

[Cullion]

So no publications, then ?

No opinion on whether you'd expect temperature to increase in line with CO2 ?

[ChenPengFi]

I still don't see:
How "warming' is so "bad".
Why more CO2 would be "bad".
Let's make the tundra arable, and all that extra CO2 can help feed new and remaining plant life.
Russia, Canada and China have huge tracts of dormant land.

That's where i think the "greenhouse" analogy fails hardest; greenhouses are by and large a "good" thing and they feed many people.
They also do not rely on CO2, so the "experiments" in some of those videos are hilarious.

We can't even get a grip on El Nino/La Nina, thinking we can understand something infinitely more complex seems pretty deluded in that light.

I agree that the historical record is specious at best(Temp and CO2 levels were going opposite directions most of the time...), and that measuring real global temperature is next to impossible to do accurately.

Combining the likely inaccuracy of the historic record,
our inability to track and predict something as relatively simple as El Nino (which indeed needs to be accounted for, with any meaningful analysis of climate),
and that the likelihood that the planet has not warmed significantly in the past 20 years nor have sea levels risen(The Maldives are not under water. Not only have they actually increased in population, they are planning a huge resort.),
i remain a skeptic, especially with regards to global policy.

Furthermore, more CO2 will help retain any remaining, and help to grow any new plantlife.

Global warming if true, will increase available farmland.

Now that's a greenhouse i can get behind!

[JohnnyCache]

"Global" warming might "result" in a more tumultuous weather pattern.

In the long view? Excellent point, the planet will adjust. There's pretty good odds it'll **** a couple hundred years of people, though.

[JohnnyCache]

Methodology

TLDR

You are a fucking idiot as regards this issue, cullion. Your head is shoved up your own ass and deep into the world of regurgitation of partisan hackery.

Mueller was your big stick; mueller changed his mind, so instead of evolving and adapting, you ... repeated the same **** from a year ago.

East anglia is a bullshit nontroversy

The people in your corner are bought conservative hacks who have convinced you "big science" and "green money" are driving this debate.

That's fucking stupid.

OK? It's not misinformed, it's not specious, it's not confused, it's fucking stupid.

The oil companies and conservative superpacs have the fucking money.

Stop being emotionally attached to iconclasty and wake the **** up. The hippies are right about something, deal, mourn, move on.