moose eater
Well-known member
You can expand the areas where such testing occurs to make it as global as you wish.Thats not a global record is it
You can expand the areas where such testing occurs to make it as global as you wish.Thats not a global record is it
You can expand the areas where such testing occurs to make it as global as you wish.
Otay.Rubbish, the margin of error would be huge and not at all reliable enough to claim anything
Exactly, no proof required just belief in what you are toldOtay.
Your assumptions are incredible at times. I know folks who have done ice core sampling in Antartica.Exactly, no proof required just belief in what you are told
Your assumptions are incredible at times. I know folks who have done ice core sampling in Antartica.
You have a computer. Use it to do something other than shoot down science you have very little knowledge of.What does that prove in relation to the global temp record.
whats the margin of error in their findings ?
You have a computer. Use it to do something other than shoot down science you have very little knowledge of.
you seem to be mistaken sir, please provide a link to said postYou have already posted this a few pages back
There is no "175 year global temp record" so how thefuckwould they know ????
The one starting from 1850 seems to have been disappered, how would they know what the global temp was, there is bugger all coverage in 1920 let alone 1850.
Its a SCAM
View attachment 19048787
you don't believe its accurate ?you seem to be mistaken sir, please provide a link to said post
now the global temperatures are routinely setting records each month, perhaps they're becoming a blur to you?
no, I'm replying to your statement that I had already posted the global temperature report a few pages backyou don't believe its accurate ?
My mistake it was for June not July, to me it looks like they copied and pasted the same shit and just replaced July for Juneno, I'm replying to your statement that I had already posted the global temperature report a few pages back
I don't see that I did, and have politely asked if you would provide a link to that duplicate post
95 % of graphs and statistics are made up. including this one ."Marine prokaryotes grow extremely fast – a process that emits a lot of carbon. In fact, prokaryotes to an ocean depth of 200 metres produce about 20 billion tonnes of carbon a year: double that of humans."
Maybe all the climate scientists could get together and decide how many tons of Co2 we humans produce
40 billion tons a year in the post above and 10 billion in the article below.
It's a climate change clown show
Earth’s oldest, tiniest creatures are poised to be climate change winners – and the repercussions could be huge
The rise of ‘pyrokaryotes’ could reduce the availability of fish humans eat, and hamper the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon emissions.theconversation.com
You're definitely the one to know!95 % of graphs and statistics are made up. including this one .
they love a graph and a pie chart
you don't believe its accurate ?
You have been making a fool of ya self today haven't ya.Rubbish, the margin of error would be huge and not at all reliable enough to claim anything
it's NOT just today, you know...You have been making a fool of ya self today haven't ya.