Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No. Was it a nail gun or a drill bit that went through your skull at a young age?
Once again, you Warmers are the ones telling us that de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous, cataclysm changes on Earth...show me how.
We have already done that. Instantaneous on the geologic scale, not on the scale of a human lifetime. Cataclysmic over the space of the lifetime of a person that is a child now.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Methane catastrophe
Show me one time.
We have shown you many times already.
Take a 100,000 or a 1,000,000 gallon tank, make it like Earth as a control, then add 200PPM CO2 and let's see what the difference are if any.
You're telling us that the changes are irreversible and instantaneous
No, only instantaneous in geologic history. Not irreversable, either. Over a period of a hundred thousand to a million years, depending on the role of the ocean clathrates, things will return to a lower level of CO2.
Show me.
Just once.
As stated, you have been shown many times.
The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 was discovered by Tyndal in 1858, and was recognized to warm the atmosphere at that early date.
Why does 'believe' enter into all discussions of GW in America today? Data becomes belief? Science in divisive America is now about belief - not facts.
Do you believe in [fill in blank]? Weird science for sure! But any reading of history confirms the skepticism all knowledge is first met with that is contrary to so called common sense judgments. More curious is why taking care of the earth is debated and why moving away from pollution and fossil fuels is not a good thing.
"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." Global Warming Fast Facts
And why does the right use any contrary information as a stick? What is it with these negative arguments, let's hope GW isn't significant but the idea we can go on polluting the earth with no consequences is truly weird. Even if GW is not a significant problem why not take of the world our grandchildren will inherit.
"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.
And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.
Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."
BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.
And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.
Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."
Asking you to even consider a controlled experiment is like asking Dracula to drink Holy water.
Are you THAT fucking dense that you can't even consider a controlled experiment involving a de minimus increase in CO2?
It's really simple: do a controlled experiment where the only variable is 200/PPM of CO2...can you do that? Why is that so fucking hard?
It's really simple: do a controlled experiment where the only variable is 200/PPM of CO2...can you do that? Why is that so fucking hard?
Like I said, no, I can't make another Earth. But if you like, take a look at Venus. Its hotter than Mercury, but twice as far away from the Sun. Why do you think that is?
Any atmosphere is going to trap heat.It's really simple: do a controlled experiment where the only variable is 200/PPM of CO2...can you do that? Why is that so fucking hard?
Like I said, no, I can't make another Earth. But if you like, take a look at Venus. Its hotter than Mercury, but twice as far away from the Sun. Why do you think that is?
Asking you to even consider a controlled experiment is like asking Dracula to drink Holy water.
Sorry but you can't make another Earth, I dunno why you can't comprehend that.
Are you THAT fucking dense that you can't even consider a controlled experiment involving a de minimus increase in CO2?
The infrared absorption cross section of CO2 is well known. Its been measured in labs.
Asking you to even consider a controlled experiment is like asking Dracula to drink Holy water.
Sorry but you can't make another Earth, I dunno why you can't comprehend that.
Are you THAT fucking dense that you can't even consider a controlled experiment involving a de minimus increase in CO2?
The infrared absorption cross section of CO2 is well known. Its been measured in labs.
I thought you could only do experiments on Earth? Why are you talking about labs?
I'll say it again, because I know that even you aren't THAT dumb. But while we're talking about labs, let's have one of these labs take 2 containers: one approximating Earths atmosphere and in the second it's Earth's atmosphere + 200/ppm of CO2 and let's measure the differences, if any.
It's really simple: do a controlled experiment where the only variable is 200/PPM of CO2...can you do that? Why is that so fucking hard?
Like I said, no, I can't make another Earth. But if you like, take a look at Venus. Its hotter than Mercury, but twice as far away from the Sun. Why do you think that is?
Now, you're dumb on purpose.It's really simple: do a controlled experiment where the only variable is 200/PPM of CO2...can you do that? Why is that so fucking hard?
Like I said, no, I can't make another Earth. But if you like, take a look at Venus. Its hotter than Mercury, but twice as far away from the Sun. Why do you think that is?
But given how much of the supposedly peer reviewed consensus of science supporting global warming has now been discredited or declared suspect, you do wonder how the AGW proponents will keep the passions stirred up?
Discredited or declared suspect by whom? More yap-yap by people that get their science from a drugged out radio jock.
The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests that this warming cycle very well may have peaked and we'll have a perfectly normal cooling period for awhile.
Gonna hold you to that, Foxxy. January 2010 just came down as the warmest ever.
January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
More especially when so much of North America has recorded record cold temperatures this year. (Of course there has never been a year where record cold and record heat hasn't been reported somewhere. That is because we have been keeping records for such a very short time.)
So a portion of less than 2% of the world's surface has had cold temperatures, while the rest has had record heat. And only a portion, for where I am at, the temps have been 50 degrees or above nearly every day since the end of December. And the daffadils, and fruit trees are all in bloom, trees are leafing out.
But I was so looking forward to this winter from hell being over, and here comes two more feet of snow.
Whine, whine.
Now, you're dumb on purpose.It's really simple: do a controlled experiment where the only variable is 200/PPM of CO2...can you do that? Why is that so fucking hard?
Like I said, no, I can't make another Earth. But if you like, take a look at Venus. Its hotter than Mercury, but twice as far away from the Sun. Why do you think that is?
Venus has an atmosphere which isn't blown away by the solar radiation wind, like that of Mercury.
Please tell us that you aren't that blatantly stupid......
Please......
But given how much of the supposedly peer reviewed consensus of science supporting global warming has now been discredited or declared suspect, you do wonder how the AGW proponents will keep the passions stirred up?
Discredited or declared suspect by whom? More yap-yap by people that get their science from a drugged out radio jock.
The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests that this warming cycle very well may have peaked and we'll have a perfectly normal cooling period for awhile.
Gonna hold you to that, Foxxy. January 2010 just came down as the warmest ever.
January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
More especially when so much of North America has recorded record cold temperatures this year. (Of course there has never been a year where record cold and record heat hasn't been reported somewhere. That is because we have been keeping records for such a very short time.)
So a portion of less than 2% of the world's surface has had cold temperatures, while the rest has had record heat. And only a portion, for where I am at, the temps have been 50 degrees or above nearly every day since the end of December. And the daffadils, and fruit trees are all in bloom, trees are leafing out.
But I was so looking forward to this winter from hell being over, and here comes two more feet of snow.
Whine, whine.
Now Foxxy, you made a definate prediction that the warming is over and we are going into a cooling cycle.
I, and the whole of the scientific community, state that the heat has just began. We shall see who is correct.
The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.
A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.
Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.
The ISPM addresses these concerns as follows. . . .
Independent Summary for Policymakers
The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.
The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled", the "consensus" is intact.
The world has never seen such freezingheat. But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.
All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.
Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless because that was the story wanted by those in charge.
In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all the notorious "hockey stick" graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)
In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC's 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world's politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December's Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed. . . .
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC - Telegraph
Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. World temperatures continue to decline as carbon emissions increase. Chilly Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Arctic sea ice is not vanishing. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. Water vapor appears to play as important a role in the climate as carbon emissions. Sunspot activity may be more important than both combined. Meanwhile, climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, not enough snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haiti earthquake.
EDITORIAL: Osama and Obama on global warming - Washington Times
Any atmosphere is going to trap heat.
Why does 'believe' enter into all discussions of GW in America today?
I thought you could only do experiments on Earth? Why are you talking about labs?
I'll say it again, because I know that even you aren't THAT dumb. But while we're talking about labs, let's have one of these labs take 2 containers: one approximating Earths atmosphere and in the second it's Earth's atmosphere + 200/ppm of CO2 and let's measure the differences, if any.
