No B.C. Fruit This Year

[chuckChuck]

Where is the credible scientific evidence to back up your irrelevant insider math there Einstein?

When asked for any independent evidence from a credible scientific institution that supports your wing nut ideas, you do a lot of yapping but you come up empty handed every time!

All hat and no cattle again and again! ?

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the advanced relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect math, but we all know you still can't understand even basic concepts of climate change and still deny climate change is warming the planet and the oceans.?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What is this advanced relationship you keep referring to?

You literally made a post where you claimed that the relationship is 0.1° c per 10 parts per million. You made the claim that you know the relationship. The scientists do not make any such bold claims because they cannot narrow it down.

How could I know the advanced relationship when the scientists don't know the relationship with enough precision to be useful?

I do know that all of the scientific literature for more than a century indicates it is a logarithmic relationship. The only one who thinks it is linear is Chuck.

[chuckChuck]

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the in depth relationship and science of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect, but we all know you still can't understand even basic concepts of climate change and still deny climate change is warming the planet and the oceans.??

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you literally told us what you thought the relationship was. And it contradicts all of the scientific literature. I don't claim to know because I cannot know something that science doesn't claim to know with any certainty.

You are repeating your same unfounded accusations.

[fjlip]

Come on answer! If human caused 3% of C02 is killing earth, WHAT does the 97% natural C02 do to earth?

[chuckChuck]

More incoherent baffle gab from A5 and flipper must have missed science.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So when I make a serious reply including actual science, you call it baffle gab.
No one wonders why you call it agrisilly.

[chuckChuck]

A "serious science" reply from the guy who said we are going to run out of CO2 if we don't keep burning fossil fuels?

"Serious science" from the pretend libertarian who never seems to come up with a credible reference, link or any credible scientific organization that supports his hair brained ideas?

On the point of serious science, you struck out long ago!

[shtferbrains]

Chuck you tell us we are among the highest carbon emitters in the world.
NASA produced this map recently using satellite data say we don't emmit any carbon. We actually sink carbon for the rest of the world.
See the zero at the bottom?
We are on the negative side

[chuckChuck]

The science says the boreal forest is now releasing more carbon than it is sequestering because of relatively rapid warming.

So why do Scotty Moe and Danny Smith have a larger emitters carbon tax if they don't need it to reduce emissions?

There is no link or reference for the map so that we can see the whole story.

And when did you suddenly start trusting science from NASA?