NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense

[luckytxn 2,265]

Read the article before trying to argue.

whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”

There is little to no increase in CO2? Please provide your raw data for evaluation. Thank you.

[Peikko 1,575]

Read the article before trying to argue.

whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”

So, no raw data, just opinion? Fine.

[luckytxn 2,265]

100 years ago. CO2 was .04

Now CO2 is. .04

I promise to try and keep it more simple for you.

So, no raw data, just opinion? Fine.

[Peikko 1,575]

100 years ago. CO2 was .04

Now CO2 is. .04

I promise to try and keep it more simple for you.

Do you know what raw data is?

You have already demonstrated that you do not know what a straw man argument is, now you do not know what raw data is either?

[luckytxn 2,265]

I am chatting about the article the OP posted. Do you want to go off topic now and chat about something else. I have now a couple of times tried to chat about the article but you are screaming about something else. I posted where in the article I was talking about. What are you bringing except outrage about the article? Nada. No wonder everyone disengages from you. You bring nothing to any argument. Bye bye.

Do you know what raw data is?

You have already demonstrated that you do not know what a straw man argument is, now you do not know what raw data is either?

[Peikko 1,575]

I am chatting about the article the OP posted. Do you want to go off topic now and chat about something else. I have now a couple of times tried to chat about the article but you are screaming about something else. I posted where in the article I was talking about. What are you bringing except outrage about the article? Nada. No wonder everyone disengages from you. You bring nothing to any argument. Bye bye.

Screaming? Outrage about the article? No one 'engages' with me? Well, I have to say that someone is most definitely off topic. All I am asking for is some kind of proof of the statement that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't changed in the last 100 years. Without that, everything is just opinion and can't be discussed with any authority.

[luckytxn 2,265]

You are making the statement the article is wrong. You go and bring the proof and if it is compelling nough it may get some feedback. Saying that the article is wrong and that something in it is wrong is OK as an opinion but then to demand that others go and find the proof is moronic. No sane person would expect to win arguments this way and has to be disregarded. I am disengaging from you. If you want to actually go and find a convincing proof about the article is wrong and show the data then we can engage. I am not doing your work for you. bye bye.

Screaming? Outrage about the article? No one 'engages' with me? Well, I have to say that someone is most definitely off topic. All I am asking for is some kind of proof of the statement that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't changed in the last 100 years. Without that, everything is just opinion and can't be discussed with any authority.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are making the statement the article is wrong. You go and bring the proof and if it is compelling nough it may get some feedback. Saying that the article is wrong and that something in it is wrong is OK as an opinion but then to demand that others go and find the proof is moronic. No sane person would expect to win arguments this way and has to be disregarded. I am disengaging from you. If you want to actually go and find a convincing proof about the article is wrong and show the data then we can engage. I am not doing your work for you. bye bye.

Perhaps you should stick to the topic in hand rather than speculating on my mental health?

There is raw data that the climate scientists have used to propose the idea that there are changes in the gaseous atmospheric makeup that cause concern. This article is suggesting that the raw data that exists is not enough to conclude that there likely to be an irreversible and negative impact as a result of these changes. What you have proposed is that there is NO change in the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's a very different proposition and if you want to bring it to the table back it up with raw data. Thanks.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I am chatting about the article the OP posted. Do you want to go off topic now and chat about something else. I have now a couple of times tried to chat about the article but you are screaming about something else. I posted where in the article I was talking about. What are you bringing except outrage about the article? Nada. No wonder everyone disengages from you. You bring nothing to any argument. Bye bye.

You know my friend they have an Ignore button for a reason, just saying

[luckytxn 2,265]

Yeah they do. I know.

You know my friend they have an Ignore button for a reason, just saying

[Karee 4,191]

You know my friend they have an Ignore button for a reason, just saying

Yeah, but then you miss out on the misplaced anger and 1st grade debate skills. Why ignore the free entertainment?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yeah, but then you miss out on the misplaced anger and 1st grade debate skills. Why ignore the free entertainment?

Because some don't even rise to 1st grade and make zero sense.

I have several on here I usually disagree with "not alluding to any one person or even admitting they exist" , that at least they make sense. but still there are a couple on here that just are not worth reading the non-sense.

I also wonder if same said people after not getting a reply to anything they say to me 100 times in a row, get a clue ?

[Peikko 1,575]

Because some don't even rise to 1st grade and make zero sense.

I have several on here I usually disagree with "not alluding to any one person or even admitting they exist" , that at least they make sense. but still there are a couple on here that just are not worth reading the non-sense.

I also wonder if same said people after not getting a reply to anything they say to me 100 times in a row, get a clue ?

You might want to try sticking to the topic instead of this back handed insulting another member group hug #######. Personally, I don't give a shite what you think of me, but there are TOS that are supposed to be adhered to