Gullible Warming Hoaxers Pimp CNBC

[Oddball]

NBC is no longer a credible Media Outlet and i think more & more people are figuring that out.

Americans rate NBC higher in believability than Fox among broadcast outlets.

link?

He's talking about this POS graph from Pew, which proves nothing as the numbers are easily within any statistical margin of error.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What the science says...
CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age.

No it isn't. That is merely an hypothesis crated by the warmers in an attempt to explain why the data don't gibe with their pet theory. You won't have any serious excess out gassing until the water starts to boil or at least simmer. Warmer water actually will hold more ionized particles than colder water.

Know how to boil a frog alive?

Put them in cold water, gradually raising the heat until the water starts to boil. The frog will be unaware of anything going on until it's too late.

If you drop a frog into boiling or hot water? The frog will sense the sudden temp difference and attempt to leap out of the pot.

The gradually warmed kettle? Frog will continue to swim and be happy. At least, until he goes tits up.

So..........if we wait until the oceans start simmering, we'll finally know something bad is happening.

With the gradual changes? It's kinda like we're the frogs in the gradually warming to a boil water.

 

[garyd]

It works the same way regarding Democrats and freedom as long as other Democrats are doing it to them.

 

[edthecynic]

Hope your job doesn't involve graphs and science. 2009 data isn't going to be kind to your red line. NASA says so. NOA agrees with them. My furnace indicates cold too.

YOU LIE!

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | September 2009
Year-to-date (January-September)

The January-September 2009 map of temperature anomalies shows the presence of warmer-than-average conditions across much of the globe's surface area, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of Canada, the northern contiguous United States, the southern oceans, and along the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date period ranked as the sixth warmest January-September period on record.

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

You provided the answer you wanted. What a joke you are.

You still have yet to answer my question. Don't dodge now.

And you didn't specify what base you wanted to use. I gave you the ONLY base that would change the chart. If you use the 20th century 100 year base, the chart will be almost identical.
So if you do not want to use the single year of 1998 as the base, what base do you want to use that you think will change the chart significantly?????
Don't dodge again!

Gee, lemme think: If I wanted to make a point that anthropogenic CO2 was warming the Earth, I would choose some base period significant to the time when there was insignificant anthropogenic CO2.

Still dodging!!!

What exactly does that have to do with the claim that 2009 data will not be kind to the temp line of the chart I posted comparing sunspots with temp?????
This one I will answer for you because it is a rhetorical question.
NOTHING!

 

[Si modo]

All who haven't a clue about cum hoc ergo propter hoc should ponder this:

 

[Oddball]

 

[Chris]

Your beloved peer review isn't science.

Nobody needs anyone else to review their information to prove that rising warm moist air causes cumulus clouds to form.....That can be reproduced and demonstrated as a fact on demand.

Get a new talking point.

BTW...The most dire estimates (and that's all they have) don't put man's contribution to overall atmospheric CO2 at 3%.

Interesting way of spinning it.

3% per year which is cumulative which is why we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Apparently someone need to peer review your posts.

 

[Chris]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Oddball]

Your beloved peer review isn't science.

Nobody needs anyone else to review their information to prove that rising warm moist air causes cumulus clouds to form.....That can be reproduced and demonstrated as a fact on demand.

Get a new talking point.

BTW...The most dire estimates (and that's all they have) don't put man's contribution to overall atmospheric CO2 at 3%.

Interesting way of spinning it.

3% per year which is cumulative which is why we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Apparently someone need to peer review your posts.

The 3% isn't cumulative, you linear thinking nitwit....Plants absorb that CO2 for nourishment.

 

[Chris]

Your beloved peer review isn't science.

Nobody needs anyone else to review their information to prove that rising warm moist air causes cumulus clouds to form.....That can be reproduced and demonstrated as a fact on demand.

Get a new talking point.

BTW...The most dire estimates (and that's all they have) don't put man's contribution to overall atmospheric CO2 at 3%.

Interesting way of spinning it.

3% per year which is cumulative which is why we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Apparently someone need to peer review your posts.

The 3% isn't cumulative, you linear thinking nitwit....Plants absorb that CO2 for nourishment.

Of course it's cumulative.

That's why we have doubled the level of CO2.

 

[KittenKoder]

Interesting way of spinning it.

3% per year which is cumulative which is why we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Apparently someone need to peer review your posts.

The 3% isn't cumulative, you linear thinking nitwit....Plants absorb that CO2 for nourishment.

Of course it's cumulative.

That's why we have doubled the level of CO2.

Then plant more fucking trees.

 

[Chris]

Human sources of CO2....

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

 

[Oddball]

Interesting way of spinning it.

3% per year which is cumulative which is why we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Apparently someone need to peer review your posts.

The 3% isn't cumulative, you linear thinking nitwit....Plants absorb that CO2 for nourishment.

Of course it's cumulative.

That's why we have doubled the level of CO2.

You really are too goddamn stupid for words.

 

[KittenKoder]

Human sources of CO2....

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

If CO2 is the problem then plant some fucking trees.

 

[saveliberty]

In the early 70's scientists were telling me and my fellow weekly reader classmates, the planet will die by 2010 because of pollution, then it was going to have another ice age, then some other human caused disaster like no trees. Guess what? They were wrong EVERY time. Al Gore is a shill and so is anyone who touts his point of view.

 

[edthecynic]

In the early 70's scientists were telling me and my fellow weekly reader classmates, the planet will die by 2010 because of pollution, then it was going to have another ice age, then some other human caused disaster like no trees. Guess what? They were wrong EVERY time. Al Gore is a shill and so is anyone who touts his point of view.

The Clean Air Act was passed in the 70s and the pollution was cleaned up. The "scientists" predicting an Ice Age in the 70s were the global warming deniers, and they are STILL wrong.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Carbon Dioxide really isn't the evil Boogeyman the Global Warming fanatics have made it out to be. It only leads to a Greener Planet in the end. This really isn't anything to Fear Monger and panic about unless you're trying to advance a political agenda. Now Global Cooling on the other hand??

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Now Global Cooling on the other hand??...

 

[Oddball]

It's GlobalClimateWarmerCoolering now.

 

[manifold]

It's GlobalClimateWarmerCoolering now.

That's still nothing compared to supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.