Can the skeptics please prove this data wrong?

[ScienceRocks]

Can the skeptics please prove this data wrong?

Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud.

If you can't disprove it then offer another theory and give support to why you believe that theory works and why.

 

[skookerasbil]

The global warming faithers like Matthew always screw up the real question...............

The global warming faithers violate the principle pillar of all science:
For something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method...............which the faithers are not at all interested in. Never have been.

Thus, we have skeptics...........

 

[skookerasbil]

Cant wait for West to get in this thread...........

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way................memo to the asshole faithers...............

Know what the temperature is in Miami tonight????

37 Degrees s0ns!!!!!

http://www.weather.com/outlook/driving/interstate/map/USGA0028?bypassredirect=true&mapdest=US_Lows_Tonight:SE

 

[mdn2000]

Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud

Its a simpleton graph you have not linked to, how about starting with a link. Pictures and Graphs are really the argument of morons, of course I should of waited for the link but I gander to say the link will prove you misunderstand the significance of the microsoft paint graph you present as debate.

 

[mdn2000]

Maybe i should of said show the data, not the con job.

Where is the link to the data. How do we prove how foolish you are without the Data.

 

[DiveCon]

Can the skeptics please prove this data wrong?



Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud.

If you can't disprove it then offer another theory and give support to why you believe that theory works and why.

sorry, but that isnt how it works
YOU prove it RIGHT

 

[ScienceRocks]

Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud

Its a simpleton graph you have not linked to, how about starting with a link. Pictures and Graphs are really the argument of morons, of course I should of waited for the link but I gander to say the link will prove you misunderstand the significance of the microsoft paint graph you present as debate.

I just wanted you to blow holes in this data Eight great figures summarizing the evidence for a “human fingerprint” on recent climate change Climate Progress

Attack the data not the messager.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can the skeptics please prove this data wrong?



Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud.

If you can't disprove it then offer another theory and give support to why you believe that theory works and why.

sorry, but that isnt how it works
YOU prove it RIGHT

I'm a moderate within this debate and don't believe in the extremism of most of the hard core...But will admit that our planet has been warming and that the data showing the level of out going heat decreasing as pretty solid support for a strengthening green house like effect. Please point out why this is wrong. Also the stratosphere has been cooling and troposphere has been warming...Which is also support for the theory.

 

[DiveCon]

Can the skeptics please prove this data wrong?



Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud.

If you can't disprove it then offer another theory and give support to why you believe that theory works and why.

sorry, but that isnt how it works
YOU prove it RIGHT

I'm a moderate within this debate and don't believe in the extremism of most of the hard core...But will admit that our planet has been warming and that the data showing the level of out going heat decreasing as pretty solid support for a strengthening green house like effect. Please point out why this is wrong. Also the stratosphere has been cooling and troposphere has been warming...Which is also support for the theory.

the climate is always changing, its proven throughout history
the debate is really is Man making it worse
we dont have enough actual empirical data on that to say either way
only the fanatics are willing to claim it is

 

[The Infidel]

I'm a moderate within this debate and don't believe in the extremism of most of the hard core...But will admit that our planet has been warming and that the data showing the level of out going heat decreasing as pretty solid support for a green house like effect. Please point out why this is wrong.

Because you are'nt taking into account..... THE SUN....ITS HOT!

Go away with this stupid global warming BULLSHIT please!

You ding-bats wont be happy till we are living in grass huts in a field.

 

[The Infidel]

the climate is always changing, its proven throughout history
the debate is really is Man making it worse
we dont have enough actual empirical data on that to say either way
only the fanatics are willing to claim it is

Nevermind that ice ages have came and went for millenium..... WHAT THE HELL CAUSED THEM?

Oh I know.... aliens right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The global warming faithers like Matthew always screw up the real question...............

The global warming faithers violate the principle pillar of all science:
For something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method...............which the faithers are not at all interested in. Never have been.

Thus, we have skeptics...........

True of what you say, but the trend shown by thoses graphs 1# Decrease of out going heat, which is a strong sign of a strengthening green house effect. 2# Cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere. If this is true then this gives it some grounds...Why do you believe that is not so? I'm not a huge faither as I think most of the global warmers are nuts.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm a moderate within this debate and don't believe in the extremism of most of the hard core...But will admit that our planet has been warming and that the data showing the level of out going heat decreasing as pretty solid support for a green house like effect. Please point out why this is wrong.

Because you are'nt taking into account..... THE SUN....ITS HOT!

Go away with this stupid global warming BULLSHIT please!

You ding-bats wont be happy till we are living in grass huts in a field.

No question that the sun is hot...But solar output topped out 60 years ago and has been falling ever since. You can explain your case by finding out that the data is bull shit and the people that are working with that data are frauds and liers and kooks, but lets assume that it is true? In hell no I don't went to live in a grass hut.

 

[ScienceRocks]

the climate is always changing, its proven throughout history
the debate is really is Man making it worse
we dont have enough actual empirical data on that to say either way
only the fanatics are willing to claim it is

Nevermind that ice ages have came and went for millenium..... WHAT THE HELL CAUSED THEM?

Oh I know.... aliens right?

Ice ages where caused by the orbit around the sun changing from a circle to a oval shape, which overall decreased the overall solar energy hitting the earth as it took the planet further away from the star for a longer period of time. Also periods like the little ice age occurred during low solar output when there was little to no sun spots and lower solar winds, which some believe has a effect on clouds. The warm and cold cycles of the last 5 thousand years have been caused by changes in solar output.

What this thread is about is the data above my friend...It maybe a trick and a power grab, but that is a whole other can of worms.

 

[mdn2000]

Prove this wrong...Is it wrong? Please, I beg of you to blow holes in this the size of the grand fucking cannon. End the debate and kill the theory of global warming as a fraud

Its a simpleton graph you have not linked to, how about starting with a link. Pictures and Graphs are really the argument of morons, of course I should of waited for the link but I gander to say the link will prove you misunderstand the significance of the microsoft paint graph you present as debate.

I just wanted you to blow holes in this data Eight great figures summarizing the evidence for a “human fingerprint” on recent climate change Climate Progress

Attack the data not the messager.

This link links to a link that links to some sort of report, so by not going to the report we have no idea what the basis of this information is. All we are seeing is cherry picked graphs which we have no idea on how they were constructed.

This is how the Global Warming propagandist misleads the public.

I have the PDF of the report, its just propaganda, the data is not there, it references others work and offers a political narrative, thats all.

There is nothing to debate in the PDF of this study.

At best this is a copy of a copy of a copy of copy of a study of many studies, this is not the basis for debate.

 

[mdn2000]

Further, after following the link, to a link, to a study, I take one study referenced in the pdf of the study and this is the entire study, this study of a study is referencing, its another study referencing others studies.

So I will have to take more time to find the actual data.

This the argument, state CO2 is absolutely the cause of a tiny period of the earths warming, reference a study, the references a study, that links to study, in which the paper is acknowledged and referenced, yet said paper only leads to more dead ends.

This is why you must always challenge the idiots, they read a headline and never offer the actual data. Global Warming is nothing more than a Man-Made headline.

Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions
Global Regional National Top 20

Contributors

T.A. Boden, G. Marland, and R.J. Andres

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,
Environmental Sciences Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6290, U.S.A.

DOI

10.3334/CDIAC/00001

Period of Record

1751-2006

Methods

Publications containing historical energy statistics make it possible to estimate fossil fuel CO2 emissions back to 1751. Etemad et al. (1991) published a summary compilation that tabulates coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year. Footnotes in the Etemad et al.(1991) publication extend the energy statistics time series back to 1751. Summary compilations of fossil fuel trade were published by Mitchell (1983, 1992, 1993, 1995). Mitchell's work tabulates solid and liquid fuel imports and exports by nation and year. These pre-1950 production and trade data were digitized and CO2 emission calculations were made following the procedures discussed in Marland and Rotty (1984) and Boden et al. (1995). Further details on the contents and processing of the historical energy statistics are provided in Andres et al. (1999).

The 1950 to present CO2 emission estimates are derived primarily from energy statistics published by the United Nations (2008), using the methods of Marland and Rotty (1984). The energy statistics were compiled primarily from annual questionnaires distributed by the U.N. Statistical Office and supplemented by official national statistical publications. As stated in the introduction of the Statistical Yearbook, "in a few cases, official sources are supplemented by other sources and estimates, where these have been subjected to professional scrutiny and debate and are consistent with other independent sources." Data from the U.S. Department of Interior's Geological Survey (USGS 2008) were used to estimate CO2 emitted during cement production. Values for emissions from gas flaring were derived primarily from U.N. data but were supplemented with data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (1994), Rotty (1974), and data provided by G. Marland. Greater details about these methods are provided in Marland and Rotty (1984), Boden et al. (1995), and Andres et al. (1999).

 

[mdn2000]

Your post claims CO2 is the cause and is proven in an experiment, where is the experiment, I cannot find it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Your post claims CO2 is the cause and is proven in an experiment, where is the experiment, I cannot find it.

I just said that the satellites show a decrease in out going heat, which is a sign of a strengthening green house. Some of the info within those graphics do show a increase of one kiind of co2 of course.

 

[mdn2000]

Your post claims CO2 is the cause and is proven in an experiment, where is the experiment, I cannot find it.

I just said that the satellites show a decrease in out going heat, which is a sign of a strengthening green house. Some of the info within those graphics do show a increase of one kiind of co2 of course.

Yes, and the study is indirectly stating according to a source with an experiment, you wish for us to attempt to poke holes in this thread you started, the biggest hole is there is no facts or data to support this thread, I am merely asking for those facts which shows the premise of your thread is false.

I challenge you to support that the graphs actually represent an experiment or the data in which the study is supposed to show us.

Your links lead to nothing but a circle jerk of not providing any data.