Courts dismiss denier suit against EPA

[Crick]

I really don't think there's any need. It's not as if anyone pays any attention to what you say now.

 

[Kosh]

Do you even understand the science? Do you know why there's a concern about CO2? IMO, you're just parroting what others have told you and don't have a clue about the basics.

"Hard lefter" challenging you to prove you're not an ignorant boob.

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

What happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? You didn't answer the question. You just proved my point. You'll parrot anything that fits your bias.

No I did answer your question and you did not like the answer, mostly because it was based in real science and does not fit the AGW narrative.

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Yes the AGW cult does not understand real science, they hate it, even more proof:

Yep that is it deny the real science there you AGW religious cult members..

CO2 does NOT drive climate, thus any questions concerning just goes to show that you posted a AGW cult loaded question.

 

[Crick]

That's the biggest collection of shite I've seen in many a moon. BTW, you've got your quote attributions fucked up. You've got yourself claiming to be a leftwinger. As a leftwinger myself, I have to stand up and say it isn't so.

On the point, oft repeated by those of your intellectual milieu, that CO2 has always followed heating in the past - are you aware that no one in mainstream science, among climate scientists or the educated public has the SLIGHTEST disagreement with that point?

Are you aware what an idiot you look claiming that the point refutes AGW in any way whatsoever? This has been explained to you over and over and over again. How can you not get it? There were no humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere in the distant past. Today there is. In that regard, the situation is unprecedented.

There have been times when CO2 levels were driven upward by means other than temperature increases: The KT impact, the eruption of the Deccan traps, the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All such events led to dramatic temperature increases which FOLLOWED the CO2/methane increases. Jeremy Shakun's work on global proxies from the first half of the Holocene clearly show that CO2 released by Milankovitch Cycle warming eventually took over the role of primary driver for further warming.

If you'd like to stop looking like such an idiot, a good first step would be to cease and desist claiming that this means anything and that anyone is attempting to suppress knowledge of those events or of the significance of water vapor and methane in global warming. Really. You couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried.

 

[jc456]

That's the biggest collection of shite I've seen in many a moon. BTW, you've got your quote attributions fucked up. You've got yourself claiming to be a leftwinger. As a leftwinger myself, I have to stand up and say it isn't so.

On the point, oft repeated by those of your intellectual milieu, that CO2 has always followed heating in the past - are you aware that no one in mainstream science, among climate scientists or the educated public has the SLIGHTEST disagreement with that point?

Are you aware what an idiot you look claiming that the point refutes AGW in any way whatsoever? This has been explained to you over and over and over again. How can you not get it? There were no humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere in the distant past. Today there is. In that regard, the situation is unprecedented.

There have been times when CO2 levels were driven upward by means other than temperature increases: The KT impact, the eruption of the Deccan traps, the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All such events led to dramatic temperature increases which FOLLOWED the CO2/methane increases. Jeremy Shakun's work on global proxies from the first half of the Holocene clearly show that CO2 released by Milankovitch Cycle warming eventually took over the role of primary driver for further warming.

If you'd like to stop looking like such an idiot, a good first step would be to cease and desist claiming that this means anything and that anyone is attempting to suppress knowledge of those events or of the significance of water vapor and methane in global warming. Really. You couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried.

To all my peers, there you go, Jiminie admitting that all leftwingers think the same. haahhahahahahhahahaa which goes to show they don't think at all.

Jiminie, thanks for the continued laugh of the day presedence that you started.You certainly are entertaining. A k00k besides.

 

[Dot Com]

deniers and their frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Billy_Bob]

deniers and their frivolous lawsuits.

According to the ruling, the science of the law suite and the specific points of contention were never addressed. It simply states the court found "NO HARM" could have been had yet from the unlawful changes as they had not just yet been enacted.. (The Court held; Plaintiffs had no standing for the suit at this time as they have not suffered harm.)

Alarmists and them wetting themselves in their corners..

 

[Crick]

That's the biggest collection of shite I've seen in many a moon. BTW, you've got your quote attributions fucked up. You've got yourself claiming to be a leftwinger. As a leftwinger myself, I have to stand up and say it isn't so.

On the point, oft repeated by those of your intellectual milieu, that CO2 has always followed heating in the past - are you aware that no one in mainstream science, among climate scientists or the educated public has the SLIGHTEST disagreement with that point?

Are you aware what an idiot you look claiming that the point refutes AGW in any way whatsoever? This has been explained to you over and over and over again. How can you not get it? There were no humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere in the distant past. Today there is. In that regard, the situation is unprecedented.

There have been times when CO2 levels were driven upward by means other than temperature increases: The KT impact, the eruption of the Deccan traps, the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All such events led to dramatic temperature increases which FOLLOWED the CO2/methane increases. Jeremy Shakun's work on global proxies from the first half of the Holocene clearly show that CO2 released by Milankovitch Cycle warming eventually took over the role of primary driver for further warming.

If you'd like to stop looking like such an idiot, a good first step would be to cease and desist claiming that this means anything and that anyone is attempting to suppress knowledge of those events or of the significance of water vapor and methane in global warming. Really. You couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried.

To all my peers, there you go, Jiminie admitting that all leftwingers think the same. haahhahahahahhahahaa which goes to show they don't think at all.

Jiminie, thanks for the continued laugh of the day presedence that you started.You certainly are entertaining. A k00k besides.

As seems to be growing more and more often the case, your response has no relevance to my statements whatsoever.

 

[konradv]

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2..

You posted a lot of graphs, but I didn't see any cites. For the real story go here:

Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanos - Gerlach - 2006 - Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library and here:

Volcano Hazards Program

Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).

Carbon dioxide in Earth s atmosphere - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Kosh]

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2..

You posted a lot of graphs, but I didn't see any cites. For the real story go here:

Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanos - Gerlach - 2006 - Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library and here:

Volcano Hazards Program

Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).

Carbon dioxide in Earth s atmosphere - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The citations are in the graphs for those that can read, but once again the programmed AGW cult shows that religious dogma trumps real science.

 

[Crick]

That's the biggest collection of shite I've seen in many a moon. BTW, you've got your quote attributions fucked up. You've got yourself claiming to be a leftwinger. As a leftwinger myself, I have to stand up and say it isn't so.

On the point, oft repeated by those of your intellectual milieu, that CO2 has always followed heating in the past - are you aware that no one in mainstream science, among climate scientists or the educated public has the SLIGHTEST disagreement with that point?

Are you aware what an idiot you look claiming that the point refutes AGW in any way whatsoever? This has been explained to you over and over and over again. How can you not get it? There were no humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere in the distant past. Today there is. In that regard, the situation is unprecedented.

There have been times when CO2 levels were driven upward by means other than temperature increases: The KT impact, the eruption of the Deccan traps, the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All such events led to dramatic temperature increases which FOLLOWED the CO2/methane increases. Jeremy Shakun's work on global proxies from the first half of the Holocene clearly show that CO2 released by Milankovitch Cycle warming eventually took over the role of primary driver for further warming.

If you'd like to stop looking like such an idiot, a good first step would be to cease and desist claiming that this means anything and that anyone is attempting to suppress knowledge of those events or of the significance of water vapor and methane in global warming. Really. You couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried.

Every word of this is true and nothing you numbskulls have said has thrown the slightest doubt on the matter.

 

[Kosh]

That's the biggest collection of shite I've seen in many a moon. BTW, you've got your quote attributions fucked up. You've got yourself claiming to be a leftwinger. As a leftwinger myself, I have to stand up and say it isn't so.

On the point, oft repeated by those of your intellectual milieu, that CO2 has always followed heating in the past - are you aware that no one in mainstream science, among climate scientists or the educated public has the SLIGHTEST disagreement with that point?

Are you aware what an idiot you look claiming that the point refutes AGW in any way whatsoever? This has been explained to you over and over and over again. How can you not get it? There were no humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere in the distant past. Today there is. In that regard, the situation is unprecedented.

There have been times when CO2 levels were driven upward by means other than temperature increases: The KT impact, the eruption of the Deccan traps, the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All such events led to dramatic temperature increases which FOLLOWED the CO2/methane increases. Jeremy Shakun's work on global proxies from the first half of the Holocene clearly show that CO2 released by Milankovitch Cycle warming eventually took over the role of primary driver for further warming.

If you'd like to stop looking like such an idiot, a good first step would be to cease and desist claiming that this means anything and that anyone is attempting to suppress knowledge of those events or of the significance of water vapor and methane in global warming. Really. You couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried.

Every word of this is true and nothing you numbskulls have said has thrown the slightest doubt on the matter.

More empirical evid3ence that the AGW cult relies on religious dogma vs actual real science..

Zero scientific evidence exists that proves CO2 drives climate..

Yet they continue posting even though it has never been proven and has been debunked..

 

[Crick]

That would be because it hasn't been debunked. That would be because the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 drives warming just gets deeper and higher and wider.