I didn't claim anything. You are confused, as usual, GAY as well, and talking out your ***.Zeets2 » 25 Jan 2026, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Didn't you claim that the last several years have been the hottest on record, when the fact is that the Medieval warm period beginning in the year 950 lasted for several hundred years and had temperatures as high or higher than we have today?
So what caused that, genius, since it was before there was a single car, factory, can of hair spray, or plastic straw in the world at that time? Or will you acknowledge that the advent of Man's economic and industrial progress IS NOT to blame for any current climate change?
Oh no?*Roshambo » 25 Jan 2026, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑ I didn't claim anything. You are confused, as usual, GAY as well, and talking out your ***.
So who's the confused one here?Post 23 Jan 2026, 5:08 pm
Earth's average surface temperature has risen by approximately (1.1 degrees C) to (1.42 degrees C) (2 to 2.6 degrees F) since the late 1800s, with 2024 and 2025 being the warmest years on record.
That is a copy and paste from an AI inquiry. I didn't claim a **** thing.Zeets2 » 25 Jan 2026, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh no?
Aren't these claims from your post?:
So who's the confused one here?
Apparently, I've got more brains in my *** then you've got in your forgetful head!
Cannonpointer » 23 Jan 2026, 10:38 pm » wrote: ↑ What does it mean, climate change? So many people use that phrase to mean one thing or another. The phrase itself, denotatively, just means that the climate is changing. But some people, when they use that, attach connotative meanings. They might mean that oil compamnies are evil. They might mean that we all need to drive a prius and sniff our own farts. They might ONCE have meant we need to drive Teslas, and now that we need to NOT drive Teslas.
And they might mean that we need an autistic swedish teenager to decide our environmental policies by hyper-moral fiat.
If, by "climate change," you mean that a retarded swedish autist should be writing our environmental policies, I deny climate change.
If, by "climate change," you mean that the US should spend trillions in the coming decades to pretend we are combatting carbon while actually offshoring it, I deny climate change.
If, by "climate change," you mean that C02 is a terribly dangerous and volatile trace gas that is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than water vapor, I deny climate change.
When you say, "Deny climate change, show the internet you are a dumb ****," you need to tell us what that phrase means when you speak it. Because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
I can tell you this: I have done as deep a dive into the peer reviewed literature as an interested non-scientist can. And what I discovered is that the science has been truly politicized. Science has always and forever been a whore. Corrupting it is nothing new. When Britain ran us, coffee would make your sons indolent (gay) and your daughters licentious (hooers). That was the science. And that science served the british east india company's tea monopoly quite well. In the dutch colonies, the science around coffee and tea was precisely inverted.
But as corrupted as science is, there is very, very little science that supports what MOST people mean when they say climate change. There is alot of high volume reportage, but the articles linked to that reportage donot say what is claimed by the reportage. It's just that very few people click the links. Folks are lazy. And the fact that this truth is little known does not make it any less true. It just makes it little known.
And there is little excuse for people continuing to treat it as a religion, as debunked as its precepts have been over the decades of hysteria. Florida is not under water. 50 million climate refugees are not washing up on our shores. Sea levels have not risen by meters, but by millimeters. And the promised heat wave - yes, a heat wave was emphatically and fanatically promised - never happened, no matter HOW much Algorians had fun with numbers.
So... what do you mean by climate change? I am likely your huckleberry.
social nurturing after birth every generation gap repeating history to save ideologies cradle to grave every ancestral lineage since dawn of civilization not since inception of original 16 great great grandparents to each great great grandchild born one at time now, each rotation accounted for after birth, not since conceived..Cannonpointer » 25 Jan 2026, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑ Yeah, but your blacks prefer to be called coloreds.
Actually, nowadays they wanna be called "of" coloreds.
NOT wasting any time responding to a **** IDIOT!!jerrab » 25 Jan 2026, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑jerra b, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.
You are an ignoramus. The paper which made the claim you are puking was "peer reviewed" by the same guy who wrote it.jerrab » 25 Jan 2026, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑ ------------------------------
Man-made (anthropogenic) climate change is the primary driver of current global warming, with over 99% of scientists agreeing that human activities—chiefly burning fossil fuels—are raising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
You understand trailer park "science." C02 is plant food. Without enough of it, the world will enter an ice age. The current condition of the atmosphere is that atmospheric carbon is near an all time LOW.jerrab » 25 Jan 2026, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑This creates a "blanket effect," trapping heat, causing unprecedented temperature increases, sea-level rise, and extreme weather.
You really are SO **** STUPID to realize that "quoting" as you are on IGNORE is about as pointless as your **** dick is!!jerrab » 25 Jan 2026, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑jerra b, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.
The bee hive is buzzed..
When people factualize theories and theologies over understanding how evolving actually happens in plain sight, nobody saving humanity will agree with the self evident results of genetic outcomes only exist living eternally separated by heart beats and personal brains navigating space at the same time now.jerra b » 25 Jan 2026, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑ ------------------------------
Man-made (anthropogenic) climate change is the primary driver of current global warming, with over 99% of scientists agreeing that human activities—chiefly burning fossil fuels—are raising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. This creates a "blanket effect," trapping heat, causing unprecedented temperature increases, sea-level rise, and extreme weather.
I can digital stutter like the rest of the mutterers on here..*31stArrival » 26 Jan 2026, 6:15 am » wrote: ↑ When people factualize theories and theologies over understanding how evolving actually happens in plain sight, nobody saving humanity will agree with the self evident results of genetic outcomes only exist living eternally separated by heart beats and personal brains navigating space at the same time now.
regardless which generation gap of their ancestral lineage position of displacement past, current events, any rotation forward a person obtains after birth.
Social consensus exists in vocabulary, ancestral lineages exist in current generation gaps occupying time daily here alive or dead, now. Binary code of zero or one of a kind. Zero based budgeting of current human population lived and alive since inception of this species native to this universal location?Johnny You » 26 Jan 2026, 6:23 am » wrote: ↑ I can digital stutter like the rest of the mutterers on here..
Humanity burns 1.47 trillion gallons of liquid hydrocarbons a year. That's 181 gallons each for 8.1 Billion souls. It sounds a reasonable number.
A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.8 lbs. When combusted 20 lbs of CO2 is produced,
1.47 trillion gal/yr*20 lbs co2/gal = 29.4 trillion pounds of CO2/yr. -13.3 Gigatons
Volcanoes make 1 GT a year on an active year. Forest Fires make 2 GT a year.
Anyone who denies anthropogenic effects on climate is a fool. There would be no Oxygen in the air if photosynthesis by plant life hadn't occured. Humans are changing the balance. We crossed 400 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere in 2010 after Mother Nature had it regulated to under that for 800,000 years. Today we are at 430 ppm and climbing, we increased 30ppm in 15 years. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, more of it in the air, more heat absorption. The industrial revolution coincided with the increased slope.
Drill Baby Drill Burn Baby Burn is going to fry this planet like an egg on drugs in a pan for our descendants.
I don't always stay cool. But when I do math helps.
No, just your average everyday human understanding of arithmetic. Yours is an arythmal abomination..*31stArrival » 26 Jan 2026, 6:41 am » wrote: ↑ Social consensus exists in vocabulary, ancestral lineages exist in current generation gaps occupying time daily here alive or dead, now. Binary code of zero or one of a kind.
math is done by integers not syllables creating a zero sum gain scenario of simple compounding results present. Anything multiplied or divided by 0 is zero.Johnny You » 26 Jan 2026, 6:44 am » wrote: ↑ No, just your average everyday human understanding of arithmetic. Yours is an arythmal abomination..
youtu.be/WrpbHb6_9gU?si=bC_ZnX3_6Gho6WN-[INSERT DUT CUM HERE]
Oh, are you in the habit of posting lies that you don't believe yourself simply because AI told you so?*Roshambo » 25 Jan 2026, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑ That is a copy and paste from an AI inquiry. I didn't claim a **** thing.
You are confused, as usual. 24x7 confusion, GAY as well.
Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.Zeets2 » 26 Jan 2026, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑ Oh, are you in the habit of posting lies that you don't believe yourself simply because AI told you so?
Zeets intelligence quotient has the exact opposite slope*Roshambo » 26 Jan 2026, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑ Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.
i.postimg.cc/g0DKNx9y/GAT.jpg
=======================================Cannonpointer » 25 Jan 2026, 10:06 pm » wrote: ↑ You are an ignoramus. The paper which made the claim you are puking was "peer reviewed" by the same guy who wrote it.
He was a baccalaureate in psychology who presumed to speak for climate scientists.
You are saying "all" scientists, because you get your "science" from the media - not from peer reviewed journals.
Here is what you will not do, you **** fingered hick rube. You will not show any peer reviewed literature backing your ****.
You understand trailer park "science." C02 is plant food. Without enough of it, the world will enter an ice age. The current condition of the atmosphere is that atmospheric carbon is near an all time LOW.
What **** fingered rubes are never told is that C02 is plant food which is absorbed by carbon sinks almost as fast at it is introduced. RIGHT NOW IN YOUR KITCHEN, there are vegetables that had to be grown in hot houses with added C02, because the current levels are far less than ideal for most produce.
I wish you ignorant, rednecked, uneducated jackasses on the left would shut the **** up about ANYTHING to do with science.