Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[EMH]

Crick is parroting a filibuster...

Lol


They claim oceans are warming, but there is no breakout in canes.

They claim a net ongoing ice melt, but have to lie about islands in the South Pacific sinking as "evidence."

Co2 has gone up in the atmosphere, but temps have not according to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Science says THEORY REJECTED

"The science" says FUDGE BOTH and get crick to cut paste and parrot the fudge...

 

[abu afak]

exactly how is it doing that? By the way CO2 is not a pollutant. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.

and it has nothing to do with political leanings, it has to do with scientific facts. Prove the claimed link between human created pollution and climate. you can't and no one else can either, because its a hoax designed to turn unthinking morons like you into obedient sheep.

CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas."
Look it up, you'll be amazed!
Wec known this since the late 19th C.

Sort but more technically..
CO2 and other GHGs Block radiation being reflected back out into space and trap it in the atmosphere.
Scientists have actually measured that fact.
`

 

[Redfish]

CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas."
Look it up, you'll be amazed!
Wec known this since the late 19th C.

Sort but more technically..
CO2 and other GHGs Block radiation being reflected back out into space and trap it in the atmosphere.
Scientists have actually measured that fact.
`

water vapor does the exact same thing, only more so. Is water now a pollutant?

 

[Crick]

water vapor does the exact same thing, only more so. Is water now a pollutant?

The short answer is that it is not because it is condensable.

 

[Redfish]

The short answer is that it is not because it is condensable.

yep, it does rain on planet earth, but in its vapor form water is a sun blocking gas, just like evil CO2, which, by the way, all plants life must have to survive.

 

[Crick]

yep, it does rain on planet earth, but in its vapor form water is a sun blocking gas, just like evil CO2, which, by the way, all plants life must have to survive.

I'm sorry you don't understand the basics of the issue.

 

[Redfish]

I'm sorry you don't understand the basics of the issue.

I understand the chemistry of earth's atmosphere quite well, its you who lacks understanding and knowledge.

 

[Crick]

I understand the chemistry of earth's atmosphere quite well, its you who lacks understanding and knowledge.

Then what point did you take away from my comment that water wasn't a pollutant because it's condensable?

 

[Redfish]

Then what point did you take away from my comment that water wasn't a pollutant because it's condensable?

what you said is true, it is also true that CO2 is not a pollutant in the quantities found in our atmosphere, and is in fact a chemical without which there would be no life on earth of any kind.

 

[Crick]

what you said is true, it is also true that CO2 is not a pollutant in the quantities found in our atmosphere, and is in fact a chemical without which there would be no life on earth of any kind.

I disagree and so did the Supreme Court.

 

[abu afak]

that is simply not true. the Scientific community is divided roughly by Half on AGW. You are only posting the claims from the groups that are being paid to come up with a pre-established conclusion. said another way, you are a sheep to your masters, exactly the kind of people they must have to dominate and mandate.

LOL - Not even close.
LIE.
LINK?
`

 

[Crick]

the scientific community is divided roughly by half on AGW. You are only posting the claims from the groups that are being paid to come up with a pre-established conclusion.

I would very much like to see some evidence to back up both of these claims.

 

[ding]

The abstract concludes with:

Notice how even he has nothing to say regarding today's climate. Also how he doesn't say changes in oceanic CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes. He doesn't say much and much of what he does say is clearly BS.

Translation: We looked at all this data and couldn't make hide nor tail out of more than three quarters of it. Two fifths of the remaining quarter indicated positive atmospheric CO2 forcing of temperature while three fifths did not. So we're hanging our hats on that one fifth of one quarter difference, ignoring that two fifths of one quarter we don't like, and going all in on Exxon-Mobil, our favorite hidden sponsor!

What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.

 

[Crick]

What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.

It a very little known process known as the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[EMH]

What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.

The theory is laughably bull and always has been.

All forms of gas absorb some part of EM

Ozone absorbs powerful UV

Co2 absorbs super weak IR

And that is why increase in co2 has not warmed atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The theory is laughably bull and always has been.

All forms of gas absorb some part of EM

Ozone absorbs powerful UV

Co2 absorbs super weak IR

And that is why increase in co2 has not warmed atmosphere.

What does nitrogen absorb?

 

[EMH]

What does nitrogen absorb?

You look it up.

It absorbs something, since Pluto used to have an atmosphere decades ago...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You look it up.

It absorbs something, since Pluto used to have an atmosphere decades ago...

You made the claim.

Giving it up already?

 

[EMH]

You made the claim.

Giving it up already?

What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"


Hint - Pluto has an elliptical orbit and has been moving away from the sun, so something about the sun i.e. EM was being absorbed by gaseous nitrogen...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"


Hint - Pluto has an elliptical orbit and has been moving away from the sun, so something about the sun i.e. EM was being absorbed by gaseous nitrogen...

What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"

It froze because it was absorbing EM?