Evidence for global climate change 1899
is Yes it all does. Scientific journals, scientific agencies -- it all agrees. No, it goes to the issue that the debate is over. still Sure...
No, but all the scientific literature does.
Since creationism is debated in some groups, does that mean the jury is still out on that?
Not among the body of scientists.
So is gravity and atoms then.
Lloyd Parker A falsehood (because not all the scientific literature does) and an Argumentum ad Populum (argument that because it is a popular view, it is the...
Then. Not now. Talk about logical fallacies! You're arguing that since a pandemic in the middle ages was not caused by influenza, one now could not be either.
No, that's what the science proves.
OK, idiot alert!
CO2 in the atmosphere is up over 30%, and it's atmospheric CO2 that traps heat.
Which doesn't trap heat.
They do not. They did before humans perturbed the equilibrium, starting around 150 years ago. It takes a very long time for an equilibrium to be reestablished in something like this.
No, it's just ignorance to claim what you did.
Scientifically, you are as dumb as a fence post.
Stuart Grey drivel You are really great about whining about logical fallacies that exist only in your mind; the CO2 to climate change correlations aren't Post Hoc Ergo Propiter...
The oceanic CO2 isn't trapping heat.
Is all the water in the oceans a greenhouse gas too?
The CO2 dissolved in the oceans no more traps heat than coal in the ground does.
Well, this particular warming, yes.
xml
OK, big fat lie. And look up "opinion" -- you might learn what it means.
No. Another logical fallacy. "If a significant cause of people being end in New York isautos, that must also be a significant cause in Tibet."
Learn some science, Stuart. Your Latin doesn't impress anyone, and your "science" paints you the fool.
Evidence for global climate change 1900
Alt Computer Consultants from Newsgroups