Change My Mind

In case you hadn't heard everything Madcow told you for 10 years is long debunked bullshit - especially the Russian Collusion hoax.

You can't ever see evidence anyway, so why try?

Last week the IPCC at the UN RCP8.5 just published their latest report. Main point they make is the the extreme estimates are implausable. In other words not accurate. New scenarios from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have dropped radiative-forcing scenarios due to being a flawed theory. The projections haven't even been within a reliable range. In simple terms, CO2 doesn't reflect radiation. Physics/Chemistry has always defined CO2 as transparent, clear (for example chlorine and sulfur gasses have color) and non-reflective. Physicist have tried to explain this in hopes of improving computer models, but climate researchers weren't willing to listen to any ideas to produce better data and models.
You can look it up. A lot of it is really dry, even for a physicist.

You're partially right. CO2 absorbs and re emits radiation. Even though this is not the same as reflecting radiation, it still sends harmful radiation to Earth.

If you were trying to prove to me that CO2 is not harmful, I'm sorry, but you failed.

Look up toxicity of CO2, please.

Can you give me the link?

Why? If I do you won't believe it because I gave it to you. You already dismiss me for having no credibility, no education and no knowledge. You are intelligent, you can find the information, then make your own determination on if the UN is telling the truth. Use your brain so you don't have to attack mine please.

For crying out loud. Everyone here has tried to give you links, and you reject everything. Your communist indoctrinators disguised as teachers have brainwashed you to perfection.
I asked where you went to college, you replied, "I do my research." Then do your research. If someone understands and faithfully uses the principles of research, they can research anything. The process increases understanding of every subject the researcher approaches. It's the same with the Scientific Method. When the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you don't change the data, you change the hypothesis. If you don't like what the data tells you, get over it, it's not a personal attack on you, it's the data research produced. The truth is always the truth.

No seriously. You can give me the link and I'll check it. If you're correct, then it should be no shame to give me the right info. Unless you're lying and that is why you want to hide what you "researched......"

Where did you go to college?

I do my research.

Then you'll research the IPCC Document?

I thought you could do your research. Find Google, then type in UN IPCC, that stands for United Nations. IPCC stands for International Panel on Climate Change. Let your investigative mind run wild, they have been the source of all you proclaim as truth. If the data doesn't back the theory, you adjust your theory. That's the scientific method. Are you mad because they realize they have to refine their methods to produce more accurate science?

Sure Dinosaur. Give me the link

Au contrairian. For knowing everything you don't really know anything. There's this thing called Yahoo Search. After you get comfortable, try Google. Nexus Lexus if you really want the truth.

I already tried Google.