XPost: alt.global-warming, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/28/2025 9:17 PM, JTEM wrote:   
   > On 11/28/25 6:43 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >   
   >> And, so, you don't believe in the greenhouse effect??   
   >   
   > Again, you're obfuscating.   
   >   
   > AGW is a hoax regardless of what you believe in.   
   >   
   > AGW is a hoax, there is no actual "Science" behind the claims.   
   >   
   > AGW is a hoax, nothing ever proposed as a response would be   
   > capable of "Solving" the imaginary AGW problem, even if it were   
   > real.   
   >   
   > AGW is a hoax, humans would be better off with a warmer earth.   
   >   
   > AGW is a hoax, any and all legitimate comparisons of the present   
   > to the pre industrial past completely debunks your Gwobull Warbling.   
   >   
   > AGW is a hoax, CO2 does not dictate the climate.   
   >   
   > It's very simple to prove all this to yourself. All you need to do   
   > is...   
   >   
   > #1.  Establish when they pretend AGW began.   
   >   
   > #2.  Establish what CO2 emissions were at that time.   
   >   
   > #3.  Establish what China's CO2 emissions are right now.   
   >   
   > #4.  The Medieval Warm Period.   
   >   
   > #5.  The Roman Warm Period.   
   >   
   > #6.  The Eemian.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   I have shown you the regression equation that you or anyone else can   
   easily duplicate:   
      
   Temp = - 348 + 1.07 CO2   
      
   This is for 66 years worth of data; next January or February, I'll   
   include the 2025 annual data, which, of course, will mean 67 data   
   points.  The R-Squared is 93%.  For the social sciences, a value as low   
   of 0.2 could be considered "strong"; for engineering, a value of 0.8 is   
   good, and for strict physical systems, a value of 0.90 or 0.95 is expected.   
      
   What is there not to trust here??  If people like you want to wait   
   another 10 or 20 years, well, that's going to happen anyway, right?!   
   Now, if the coefficient in the above linear equation goes from 1.07 to   
   1.08 (or higher) in 20 years, what do you think that is indicating??   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)