Debunking the Deniers

[konradv]

The excerpt said plainly and without any ambiguity that, the CO2 could only account for the initial 1-3.5 degrees rise in temperature, all the rest was unknown....
------------------------

Unknown??? But you're claiming you KNOW it isn't CO2!?!? So what if the CO2 is secondary? The fact that it can cause effects down the line is the whole point!

 

[gslack]

The excerpt said plainly and without any ambiguity that, the CO2 could only account for the initial 1-3.5 degrees rise in temperature, all the rest was unknown....
------------------------

Unknown??? But you're claiming you KNOW it isn't CO2!?!? So what if the CO2 is secondary? The fact that it can cause effects down the line is the whole point!

Seriously??? That is your argument now? What are you 12?

Look two things:

1. use the quote feature please....

2. I didn't claim any such thing, they as in the scientists claimed they knew what changes the CO2 made and what they couldn't have caused. And according to them the CO2 was only responsible for between 1-3.5 degrees temperature rise.

look if you can't act like you can follow this and use simple logic, please don't respond to me. I don't fell like babysitting you....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

gslack;

Want me to explain this part too? Okay since you're a science wiz and all, least I can do...

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....

So again even simpler the paper confirms what I said it did. YOU sir are either a willing liar or just completely ignorant and incapable of comprehending this the way it was written.

SO which is it are you a willing liar or just an ignorant one

...................................................................................................................................

What the paper is stating is that the carbon is telling us that it was sequestered for a long time, long enough for the C14 to expend it's half lives. Now that either means that the carbon came from fossil fuels, unlikely as there is no evidence of a lack of those from times prior to that event, or from the one other source, ocean methane clathrates.

Now if you were not so full of your willfull ignorance, you would have found in the online book on prior periods of very rapid warming, information that indicated that the source was the clathrates.

Also covered in that book are the many proxy methods for determining ancient CO2 and CH4 levels.

Alright now you are flat lying.... Making it bold won't make it true....

I explained what the excerpt meant, and you are trying to claim it says something else. You are either lying or too ignorant to really understand it so you got some crazy green party explanation for it from somewhere.

look buddy just read it, its not complex really at all. Thats one of the things an excerpt is for. It explains the article in a quick easy to grasp manner so if you do look at it you have a scope or frame of reference in mind.

The excerpt said plainly and without any ambiguity that, the CO2 could only account for the initial 1-3.5 degrees rise in temperature, all the rest was unknown.... Its a fact, you have been bullsh_ted by your party and hero the Goracle. I am very sorry but its a fact, the scientists (the real ones) in reality say this, the problem is the politicians and the media need it to sound different. So they make it so....

Old Rocks is to AGW like one of those Japanese WWII soldiers we find in Guam from time to time who still believe the war is on.

 

[gslack]

gslack;

Want me to explain this part too? Okay since you're a science wiz and all, least I can do...

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....

So again even simpler the paper confirms what I said it did. YOU sir are either a willing liar or just completely ignorant and incapable of comprehending this the way it was written.

SO which is it are you a willing liar or just an ignorant one

...................................................................................................................................

What the paper is stating is that the carbon is telling us that it was sequestered for a long time, long enough for the C14 to expend it's half lives. Now that either means that the carbon came from fossil fuels, unlikely as there is no evidence of a lack of those from times prior to that event, or from the one other source, ocean methane clathrates.

Now if you were not so full of your willfull ignorance, you would have found in the online book on prior periods of very rapid warming, information that indicated that the source was the clathrates.

Also covered in that book are the many proxy methods for determining ancient CO2 and CH4 levels.

Alright now you are flat lying.... Making it bold won't make it true....

I explained what the excerpt meant, and you are trying to claim it says something else. You are either lying or too ignorant to really understand it so you got some crazy green party explanation for it from somewhere.

look buddy just read it, its not complex really at all. Thats one of the things an excerpt is for. It explains the article in a quick easy to grasp manner so if you do look at it you have a scope or frame of reference in mind.

The excerpt said plainly and without any ambiguity that, the CO2 could only account for the initial 1-3.5 degrees rise in temperature, all the rest was unknown.... Its a fact, you have been bullsh_ted by your party and hero the Goracle. I am very sorry but its a fact, the scientists (the real ones) in reality say this, the problem is the politicians and the media need it to sound different. So they make it so....

Old Rocks is to AGW like one of those Japanese WWII soldiers we find in Guam from time to time who still believe the war is on.

LOL, I always find it amazing that some people can be so ensconced in their particular ideology or "ism", they cannot see the fallacies in it no matter the evidence. Heck people like him could have their particular "isms" president and acting grand poobah tell them all their misdealings and he would deny it anyway.... Truly astounding...

 

[saveliberty]

The excerpt said plainly and without any ambiguity that, the CO2 could only account for the initial 1-3.5 degrees rise in temperature, all the rest was unknown....
------------------------

Unknown??? But you're claiming you KNOW it isn't CO2!?!? So what if the CO2 is secondary? The fact that it can cause effects down the line is the whole point!

Seriously??? That is your argument now? What are you 12?

Look two things:

1. use the quote feature please....

2. I didn't claim any such thing, they as in the scientists claimed they knew what changes the CO2 made and what they couldn't have caused. And according to them the CO2 was only responsible for between 1-3.5 degrees temperature rise.

look if you can't act like you can follow this and use simple logic, please don't respond to me. I don't fell like babysitting you....

I asked that they use the quote feature too. Apparently is it okay with admin and the poster does not have the ability.

Does C02 have a delayed effect? Please show supporting evidence konradv.

 

[Nonelitist]

Climategate II just broke.

Now we can't trust NASA