A long series on climate change

[W. Rabbit]

I don't believe your work is published in any scientific journal applying a rigorous peer-review process. You have lied about this, and you know it. You are not a scientist.

You cannot show that anywhere I have claimed anything of the sort. So wait, unless your work is now peer reviewed by universities, you can't work as a scientist...wow you are clueless about how the real world works, no wonder climate change is a hard pill to swallow.

Once again, that was YOUR litmus test for what a scientist is.

Once again, you've lied about my claims (like you lied that I claimed to personally know Professor Mueller).

The actual (I'll use Oxford) definition of scientist is:

noun

a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

You also keep ducking this question:

Do you agree with the following hypothesis:-

As CO2 concentration in the atmosophere increases, so will global average temperature.
?

Watching you keep asking this is the real comedy gold of the thread. You'd clearly do anything, including repost the same garbage for weeks, to get me to bite on this.

[Cullion]

You cannot show that anywhere I have claimed anything of the sort. Once again, that was YOUR litmus test for what a scientist is.

The actual (I'll use Oxford) definition of scientist is:





Watching you keep asking this is the real comedy gold of the thread.

You don't have expert knowledge of any of the natural sciences, and you have never published an original scientific investigation of any sort. You're delusional. You're not a scientist, you just wish you were.

You won't answer the other question because you can't. Which is pretty fucking weird for somebody who has made this many posts to defend the hypothesis that the earth is going to warm a dangerous amount due to human CO2 emissions.

[W. Rabbit]

I haven't back-pedalled once in this thread.

No you backpedaled multiple times. Multiple times.

You still haven't answered a very, very simple question about your understanding of our climate.

My answer wouldn't matter, hahahhahaha.

Do you expect global average temperatures to increase as CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere, yes or no ?

Do you expect me to answer the questions of someone who played his cards too soon and called a disagreement between ACTUAL climate scientists "public rape" to hedge his political agenda.

You keep bringing up the evils of regulation. You're as transparent as glass.

[Cullion]

No you backpedaled multiple times. Multiple times.

Show an instance.

My answer wouldn't matter, hahahhahaha.

Yes it would.

Do you expect me to answer the questions of someone who played his cards too soon and called a disagreement between ACTUAL climate scientists "public rape" to hedge his political agenda.

You keep bringing up the evils of regulation. You're as transparent as glass.

Yes, I expect you to answer that question if your claim to be able to defend a scientific position is to be addressed.

[W. Rabbit]

you just wish you were.

You wish you could see my research soooo badly, or else you wouldn't keep asking, right? You're all like "DAMN CLEAR ME BRO!"

You won't answer the other question because you can't.

Strawman. Can't doesn't mean won't.

Which is pretty fucking weird for somebody who has made this many posts to defend the hypothesis that the earth is going to warm a dangerous amount due to human CO2 emissions.

Ah an even bigger strawman to burn. See this is why I HAVEN'T posted my own opinions since we first discussed Mueller...just the facts from NASA and Nature. That's why you keep trying to go after my "cred".

The missiles are flying, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.

[Cullion]

You wish you could see my research soooo badly, or else you wouldn't keep asking, right?

I am calling you a liar.

[W. Rabbit]

I am calling you a liar.

Then you have committed yourself to being stubbornly wrong about many things.

What else can I say, you're British.

[Cullion]

Then you have committed yourself to being stubbornly wrong about many things.

What else can I say, you're British.

You could say 'here is the journal where I published my research, and this was the paper'. But you won't, because no such thing exists.

[W. Rabbit]

You could say 'here is the journal where I published my research, and this was the paper'. But you won't, because no such thing exists.

Whether it does or not, it doesn't have anything to do with climate change. Regardless of my personal curriculum vitae, you have failed all this time to try to make it relevant so you could attack it instead of NASA and Nature on AGW.

Going after what you perceived as "low hanging fruit" is how a viper slid down your arm and is now comfortably nestled around your scrotum.

[Cullion]

Whether it does or not, it doesn't have anything to do with climate change.

You made it relevant by claiming to be a scientist and claiming others had less scientific education than you in order to try and lend your words more authority in this very thread.

My attack on your other attempts at argument from authority are pretty simple, and nicely relate to why you won't answer that simple question about CO2 and increasing average temperature. Go on, explain what you think will happen to global average temperature as CO2 concentration increases.