H
Hydrogen
Guest
You have not read every review, so your statement is severely lacking the necessary evidence - whether you stand by it or not.
You have yet to provide us with a review that comes to the opposite conclusion, and I know you've looked. Still waiting.
lol, right back at ya. I'm going to go celebrate Pride '08 by having sex with my girlfriendHe's a professional b.s. artist, but I give Hydrogen credit where credit is due. When it comes to anti-global warming propaganda and half-truth science, he delivers some of the best and creative works of art out there.
Its only when it comes to truth that he falls flat on his face, but he's certainly free to make that decision. I applaud his creativity. Not everyone acts like they are a master of the trade and talks down to everyone else with such certainty and condescending swagger when they really are so wrong.
On another note, HAPPY PRIDE '08!
One thing remains clear: every peer-reviewed literature review that examines the subject of human-caused climate change concludes that it's a reality.
He's a professional b.s. artist, but I give Hydrogen credit where credit is due. When it comes to anti-global warming propaganda and half-truth science, he delivers some of the best and creative works of art out there.
Its only when it comes to truth that he falls flat on his face, but he's certainly free to make that decision. I applaud his creativity. Not everyone acts like they are a master of the trade and talks down to everyone else with such certainty and condescending swagger when they really are so wrong.
Guys, we've been through this before and we know it goes nowhere. Let's just leave it.
To the question in bold, I answered it in the other thread. As for the second paragraph, I'll amend the sentence: every peer-reviewed literature review that takes a position on the subject of human-caused climate change concludes that it's a reality. All your other points have been addressed in the other thread.There is nothing clear about what you said. Have you or have you not read every single peer-reviewed review article? Yes or no?
As I have pointed out to you on the other thread, a majority of articles on climate change make no attribution whatsoever to human causation - particularly those dealing with paleoclimatology (get it?). The study of climate and climate change is a multidisciplinary activity. Some articles will mention possible human attribution, but many take no position either way. This would be obvious to you had you actually read some articles on the subject.
Also, you appear to miss the obvious when you point out that a majority of review articles on the specific subject of human impact on climate actually discuss human-caused climate change. No kidding?
Any article that indicates factors other than a supposed human causation (such as solar, changes in global cloud cover, changes in multi-decadal ocean oscillations, etc), in essence, questions and undermines that assertion. And when considering the great degree of climate variation over the Holocene period, and the rather poor correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, you might want to reconsider your excessively political adhesion to your position.
Yeah, those Liberal spin doctors will try anything to make Dion electable
I would expect someone with a username like "Hydrogen" to be able to write CO2 properly, and not as "C02". It aggravates me to no end to see C02 or H20. It's CO2 and H2O. O = Oxygen, not 0 as in zero.
Generally on the internet, you write as a train of thought, not as an essay (or at least I do). Very different.
Yes, a truly terrible crime by someone who tends to type very quickly. But then what would a username have to do with such a typing error? And why so terribly aggravated?