also master, your still not replying on my post only the BS part.
when are you actually joining the topic?

I make a point not to attack the missing heads of headless chickens.

You haven't offered much anyway, what is there to reply to? :/
All you're doing is attacking a graph when the person who shared it has already posted a lot besides the graph.

And regarding previous posts, I've joined it more then others.

You haven't offered much anyway, what is there to reply to? :/

page 3 bottom.
plz. look befor saying BS

also page 1.

You haven't offered much anyway, what is there to reply to? :/

page 3 bottom.
plz. look befor saying BS

also page 1.

Those are pretty much nothing compared to others, not to mention the posts are long but they are full of quotes and small paragraphs, and most are calling one thing or another BS. Perhaps you should investigate the "BS" before running around calling it out. Look into claims, investigate sources. It would take about 10 minutes.

And surely you have learned by now that you don't get anything by telling people to go back pages?

Those are pretty much nothing compared to others

lol, if you cant comprehend it doesn't mean it's nothing. xD

lol, if you cant comprehend it doesn't mean it's nothing. xD

I am not even entirely sure what you are talking about.

Now, if you please, Palpatine, explain you graph to the gentleman here. We can't continue if all we do is throw around "BS", as PartyDevil so eloquently put it.

Now, if you please, Palpatine, explain you graph to the gentleman here. We can't continue if all we do is throw around "BS", as PartyDevil so eloquently put it.

I'm not Palpatine, but, if I may..? Thanks.

In Palpatine's second graph, the coloured sections don't all go down to the base line, they're on top of each other and sum up to a total of 80%, GB having something like 20% in 1900.

Could someone however explain me why he showed this graph at all?

The graph with the pirate numbers is not the best example for correlation=/=causation, honestly. I know where it comes from, but no statistician would suggest a correlation, as the GTA rises close to linear in a regular fashion, while the number of pirates first rises by a bit and then sinks non-linearly.

Concerning the CO2 issue, noone can dismiss a close correlation of atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature; it does not mean, as mentioned, that CO2 is the cause; it could be the other way around. I personally think it's kind of both, and there are too many other factors influencing temperature to reduce it down to only those two elements.
One of the links said that CO2 is a "boon for the biosphere"; it is, in short-time, for the terrestrian biosphere. But it can be detrimental if it's influence on climate comes out to be disproportionally stronger than the beneficial influence; and if it is so, humans are pushing the balance to the detrimental side. Besides, the excess CO2, dissolved in the oceans, harms the coral reefs which are an essential part of the marine biosphere. So one should be careful to shout out "guilty" or "innocent" all the same.

Could someone however explain me why he showed this graph at all?

dunno, probably the same as that pirates thingy.

I believe in climate change, I think global warming is a deceptive term, because while in many places summers are getting warmer, other places are having frigid winters. We've seen a lot of weather extremes lately, but that includes blizzards and rainstorms as well as drought. I also think mankind's role in all this is overstated. We need to be careful how we use our natural resources and how we treat the environment, but focusing on more pressing, tangible issues like deforestation and extinction would be a better idea. We have the power to fix a lot of our environmental issues already, lets focus on those before poring money into "climate change" when don't have a real solution.

Guys, the Pastafarians have conclusive and undeniable evidence that there is a direct correlation between climate change and fluctuations in the levels of piracy on the high seas:

Scientists: 0 
Climate change deniers: 0
Flying Spaghetti monster: 1

Anyone who looks outside or watches the news can tell that the climate is changing. It's slightly obvious that it is when the polar ice caps which have been there 10,000 years are suddenly meting and breaking away. Also, where I live, this winter and last winter have been the two mildest winters this area has had in recent history. I don't think it's as bad as some people are making it sound, however. Simply put, we are going to survive. Any drastic changes in climate and temperature that might have even the remote possibility or affecting our survivability as a species on Earth realistically isn't going to happen within our lifetime, or our kid's lifetimes, or their kid's lifetimes etc. Also, who is to say that Earth doesn't change it's climates naturally throughout time in some sort of a cycle?