So the science isn't settled?
Comments
-
-
2016 called and wants there news back.
-
That looks photoshoppedRaceBannon said:
-
-
MikeDamone said:
Hondo - Race, how can I lie when I say it looks photoshopped to me?
Race - First of all that's a back track from your original assertion
And its a weak deflection and bullshit
And a lie
Hondo - That's what I've stated all along.
What Hondo actually said:
If you can't see that was a clear Photoshop. I can't help you.
The farting cow is definitely photoshopped.
-
MikeDamone said:
-
My Gauchos!MikeDamone said: -
If you have to cook the books to make your point you're a criminal not a scientist.
-
About 20 years prior, the same Hal Lewis wrote:
-
So he evolved?
-
Yes. The same “evolution” that has had cranky old men pining for the good old days over all of human history.RaceBannon said:So he evolved?
-
Like from being against gay marriage to being for it?HHusky said:
Yes. The same “evolution” that has had cranky old men pining for the good old days over all of human history.RaceBannon said:So he evolved?
-
Apparently.RaceBannon said:
Like from being against gay marriage to being for it?HHusky said:
Yes. The same “evolution” that has had cranky old men pining for the good old days over all of human history.RaceBannon said:So he evolved?
-
RaceBannon said:
Like from being against gay marriage to being for it?HHusky said:
Yes. The same “evolution” that has had cranky old men pining for the good old days over all of human history.RaceBannon said:So he evolved?
Can HH keep his gay marriage if he wants to? -
I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense... -
While I don't think you can ever get enough HH, I might have a problem when I thought the letter started off with Dear Cunt,
-
Finally, someone really gets it. Cheers!HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense... -
What about all the farting Vegans do? Why don't their contributions count?HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense... -
Different trace gas. South Park Randy likes the Brazilian variety. No more blue balls.TurdBomber said:
What about all the farting Vegans do? Why don't their contributions count?HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense...
-
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere differs wildly by region.HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense... -
No shit Sherlock...its actually several orders of magnitude higher in the areas of more direct sun absorption.HHusky said:
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere differs wildly by region.HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense...
-
Yes and his resignation letter was all over the news. They told of the 200 fellow members who petitioned leadership to right the ship and get back to real science that was not a bunch of money grab pre-determined alarmist crap.HHusky said:
Oh wait, I guess the rat media never bothered to mention Doctor Lewis or the other 200 petitioners and their alarm over the money grab that was replacing real science. One would have thought that would have gotten a mention no? I mean did your rat leadership count the 200 petitioners in their fake "97% consensus"?
I can't wait to hear scotti's explanation on how this most accomplished scientist and his cohorts were all wrong.
-
I appreciate your concession that your use of averages was grossly misleading. And the implication of introducing greenhouse gases where they would otherwise be minimal but for human activity?HoustonHusky said:
No shit Sherlock...its actually several orders of magnitude higher in the areas of more direct sun absorption.HHusky said:
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere differs wildly by region.HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense... -
Climate researchers are earning trillions! (Literally).Bendintheriver said:
Yes and his resignation letter was all over the news. They told of the 200 fellow members who petitioned leadership to right the ship and get back to real science that was not a bunch of money grab pre-determined alarmist crap.HHusky said:
Oh wait, I guess the rat media never bothered to mention Doctor Lewis or the other 200 petitioners and their alarm over the money grab that was replacing real science. One would have thought that would have gotten a mention no? I mean did your rat leadership count the 200 petitioners in their fake "97% consensus"?
I can't wait to hear scotti's explanation on how this most accomplished scientist and his cohorts were all wrong.
And 95% of the new jobs during the Obama years were part time!
Does the phrase "too good to be true" ring a bell?
-
Thank you for putting on display that you know literally nothing on the subject. I don't think anyone with a science degree would have a clue as to what you are talking about with that second nonsensical sentence, but as for the first...couple questions:HHusky said:
I appreciate your concession that your use of averages was grossly misleading. And the implication of introducing greenhouse gases where they would otherwise be minimal but for human activity?HoustonHusky said:
No shit Sherlock...its actually several orders of magnitude higher in the areas of more direct sun absorption.HHusky said:
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere differs wildly by region.HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense...
Do you think the earth is exposed to more energy from the sun at the equator (where it is warm) or at the poles?
Do you think warm or cold air holds more moisture (i.e. water since I'm not sure you understand the term)?
Try to figure out the answer to those two questions and get back to me on how the average would relate to the actual behavior...
-
Unless somebody has fallen and can't get up, amberlamps chaser can't help you.HoustonHusky said:
Thank you for putting on display that you know literally nothing on the subject. I don't think anyone with a science degree would have a clue as to what you are talking about with that second nonsensical sentence, but as for the first...couple questions:HHusky said:
I appreciate your concession that your use of averages was grossly misleading. And the implication of introducing greenhouse gases where they would otherwise be minimal but for human activity?HoustonHusky said:
No shit Sherlock...its actually several orders of magnitude higher in the areas of more direct sun absorption.HHusky said:
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere differs wildly by region.HoustonHusky said:I like to think the partial pressure of CO2 going from 0.000375 atm to 0.000425 atm (out of a total pressure of 1 atmosphere at sea level) will dramatically change the temperatures on earth and destroy life on this planet, especially since water (a much stronger greenhouse gas) is on average at least an order of magnitude larger in composition of the atmosphere.
Makes sense...
Do you think the earth is exposed to more energy from the sun at the equator (where it is warm) or at the poles?
Do you think warm or cold air holds more moisture (i.e. water since I'm not sure you understand the term)?
Try to figure out the answer to those two questions and get back to me on how the average would relate to the actual behavior... -
Still denying the truth about jobs huh? Your argument is with the Harvard and Princeton experts and the chief economist in BO's administration, not with me.HHusky said:
Climate researchers are earning trillions! (Literally).Bendintheriver said:
Yes and his resignation letter was all over the news. They told of the 200 fellow members who petitioned leadership to right the ship and get back to real science that was not a bunch of money grab pre-determined alarmist crap.HHusky said:
Oh wait, I guess the rat media never bothered to mention Doctor Lewis or the other 200 petitioners and their alarm over the money grab that was replacing real science. One would have thought that would have gotten a mention no? I mean did your rat leadership count the 200 petitioners in their fake "97% consensus"?
I can't wait to hear scotti's explanation on how this most accomplished scientist and his cohorts were all wrong.
And 95% of the new jobs during the Obama years were part time!
Does the phrase "too good to be true" ring a bell?
Now go get em tiger!
