Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Vostock Ice Cores called, they said you got it wrong over a 600,000 year period. You've been played

You don't measure the absorption cross section of CO2 for infrared radiation by taking an ice core!

You are seriously the most mentally deficient person I have ever met. Is someone typing for you? Its amazing to me you can even breathe on your own.

Oh yeah Ice cores... you can apply spectra to a computer model and tell right away what the average global temperature was in any given year....

WHO designed THAT computer model? The same guy who said the ocean was going to be lapping at my front door by now?

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

 

[Contumacious]

Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

Most GOP anti-Science folks know where to find the bogus non-peer-reviewed science--how come Rubio is so clueless??

So Rubio's failure should be considered as evidence that Globull Warming is not JUNK SCIENCE?

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't get it.. Why are liberals in favor of huge electric bills? They claim to be for the poor man and yet a lot of idiotic policies they support, harm the poor more than anyone else.. It makes NO SENSE.

They want Mother Government to provide free energy. Gays and minorities get more that the evil white folk.

 

[Ernie S.]

When was the last time it was 1.3 C warmer than now?

..
Last July. Who cares? Really I can start a chart at some arbitrary number and blow your chart out of the water.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Hmmff

What it means is I can collect data and adjust my start date so that any global warming is insignificant noise while you can start yours at a point that makes AGW look significant.

 

[Ernie S.]

You don't measure the absorption cross section of CO2 for infrared radiation by taking an ice core!

You are seriously the most mentally deficient person I have ever met. Is someone typing for you? Its amazing to me you can even breathe on your own.

Oh yeah Ice cores... you can apply spectra to a computer model and tell right away what the average global temperature was in any given year....

WHO designed THAT computer model? The same guy who said the ocean was going to be lapping at my front door by now?

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

No. not at all Are you claiming you can say with certainty what the average global temperature was 600,005 years ago?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

..
Last July. Who cares? Really I can start a chart at some arbitrary number and blow your chart out of the water.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Hmmff

What it means is I can collect data and adjust my start date so that any global warming is insignificant noise while you can start yours at a point that makes AGW look significant.

OK.

How far back do you need to go to make AGW look insignificant?

Just curious.

Do you even know?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh yeah Ice cores... you can apply spectra to a computer model and tell right away what the average global temperature was in any given year....

WHO designed THAT computer model? The same guy who said the ocean was going to be lapping at my front door by now?

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

No. not at all Are you claiming you can say with certainty what the average global temperature was 600,005 years ago?

Absolute certainty? No. I'd love to know the science that makes measurements with absolute certainty.


The uncertainty in past temperature reconstructions is published right along with the reconstructions.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't measure the absorption cross section of CO2 for infrared radiation by taking an ice core!

You are seriously the most mentally deficient person I have ever met. Is someone typing for you? Its amazing to me you can even breathe on your own.

Oh yeah Ice cores... you can apply spectra to a computer model and tell right away what the average global temperature was in any given year....

WHO designed THAT computer model? The same guy who said the ocean was going to be lapping at my front door by now?

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

The temporal resolution of historic GLOBAL proxy studies on temp. Is nowhere good enough to find a 50 year spike like we have observed. They need to be taken with a shot o reason and tequila. Ask Marcott who DID one and was honest enough to admit that the resolution of merging Global proxies was in 100s of years at best. The argument is not about the warming power of CO2. Most all reputable skeptics will give you about 1DegC for a doubling of concentration. The failure of the GWarming hysterics is the proof of the magic multipliers that they apply to that 1 Deg to theorize a 4 to 8 DegC increase in surface temp. There is no contemporary or historical evidence for the runaway warming that is at the core of the GW doomsday scenarios. To believe that junk, you have to believe we live on a junker planet that will destroy itself because of a 1 or 2 degC forcing applied to it..

 

[Ernie S.]

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Hmmff

What it means is I can collect data and adjust my start date so that any global warming is insignificant noise while you can start yours at a point that makes AGW look significant.

OK.

How far back do you need to go to make AGW look insignificant?

Just curious.

Do you even know?

Let's say 1000 years for want of a big round number.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh yeah Ice cores... you can apply spectra to a computer model and tell right away what the average global temperature was in any given year....

WHO designed THAT computer model? The same guy who said the ocean was going to be lapping at my front door by now?

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

The temporal resolution of historic GLOBAL proxy studies on temp. Is nowhere good enough to find a 50 year spike like we have observed. They need to be taken with a shot o reason and tequila. Ask Marcott who DID one and was honest enough to admit that the resolution of merging Global proxies was in 100s of years at best.

And?

The argument is not about the warming power of CO2. Most all reputable skeptics will give you about 1DegC for a doubling of concentration. The failure of the GWarming hysterics is the proof of the magic multipliers that they apply to that 1 Deg to theorize a 4 to 8 DegC increase in surface temp. There is no contemporary or historical evidence for the runaway warming that is at the core of the GW doomsday scenarios. To believe that junk, you have to believe we live on a junker planet that will destroy itself because of a 1 or 2 degC forcing applied to it..

It is doubtful that Co2 has increased at this rate at any point in Earth's recent history or even - ever.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hmmff

What it means is I can collect data and adjust my start date so that any global warming is insignificant noise while you can start yours at a point that makes AGW look significant.

OK.

How far back do you need to go to make AGW look insignificant?

Just curious.

Do you even know?

Let's say 1000 years for want of a big round number.

K

Oh - but wait - it looks like a hockey stick, doesn't it? Anything that looks like a hockey stick can't be true, everyone knows that - its common sense!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Humans are responsible for all the Co2 between 300 and 400 ppm. That's 25% of the Co2 in the air. We know this from multiple lines of evidence. Not only is the total amount of fossil fuels burned since the beginning of the industrial age more than enough to account for the increase - we can detect the presence of fossil fuel produced CO2 in the air through its isotopic ratios.

This is pretty basic stuff.

So you should have no problem showing us a lab experiment that shows a 100ppm increase in CO2 raising temperature from 2-6 degrees right?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Not really. The mean free path of IR radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is about ~25 m. So you'd need a lab set up >> 25 meters in length.

Oh nose! 25 meters! That's impossibly large!! No human can build anything great than 25m in length! Thanks God we have someone as knowledgeable as you to show us the error of our ways!

All this time we're wondering "Where's the Lab work?" And you come and demolish our silly questions by pointing out the physical impossibility of creating a tank greater than 25m in length.

25 meters!

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN
the idiotic Left cant make a case based on science that it is man responsible for the warming; so they set about ridiculing people who ARENT lemmings of the global-warming agenda

 

[bedowin62]

Nothing pleases a right winger more than to see other people suffering.



a moron wrote this ^^

tells you pretty much everything you need to know about who are the lemmings slavishly advancing an agenda

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't get it.. Why are liberals in favor of huge electric bills? They claim to be for the poor man and yet a lot of idiotic policies they support, harm the poor more than anyone else.. It makes NO SENSE.

Heres what I dont get...Lets say its just me and you talking.

I tell you that I am concerned about Global Warming and the impact it will have on life, the environment, wildlife etc.

And you respond...."But how much is that going to cost?"

do you see the difference in priorities here?

This may surprise you and piss off my conservative friends, but I am a member of PETA.. have been for two years now. I'm a HUGE supporter of animal rights, to the extreme.. very very left of center. The difference? It's a FACT animals are discarded, abused, treated inhumanely on a daily basis.. Global warming proof?? NONE that sways me.. NONE.

Yeah but that still doesnt explain the difference in priorties. At least you didnt say there wasnt any proof. The best thing about proof is its still proof whether or not you are swayed.

 

[Freewill]

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

The temporal resolution of historic GLOBAL proxy studies on temp. Is nowhere good enough to find a 50 year spike like we have observed. They need to be taken with a shot o reason and tequila. Ask Marcott who DID one and was honest enough to admit that the resolution of merging Global proxies was in 100s of years at best.

And?

The argument is not about the warming power of CO2. Most all reputable skeptics will give you about 1DegC for a doubling of concentration. The failure of the GWarming hysterics is the proof of the magic multipliers that they apply to that 1 Deg to theorize a 4 to 8 DegC increase in surface temp. There is no contemporary or historical evidence for the runaway warming that is at the core of the GW doomsday scenarios. To believe that junk, you have to believe we live on a junker planet that will destroy itself because of a 1 or 2 degC forcing applied to it..

It is doubtful that Co2 has increased at this rate at any point in Earth's recent history or even - ever.

Now there is some real science for you. Doubtful, maybe, could be, all words in the scientific method.

Of course it doesn't really matter if it did or didn't. No one is arguing that CO2 is increasing. Could be that the increase is actually good thing if it moderates the temperature swings as apparently has happened for the last 14 years. Severe weather is down not up so perhaps we should not be fearing that which we do not know and thanking God for that which we do.

 

[Freewill]

Nothing pleases a right winger more than to see other people suffering.



a moron wrote this ^^

tells you pretty much everything you need to know about who are the lemmings slavishly advancing an agenda

As long as they are liberals.

 

[Freewill]

I don't get it.. Why are liberals in favor of huge electric bills? They claim to be for the poor man and yet a lot of idiotic policies they support, harm the poor more than anyone else.. It makes NO SENSE.

Heres what I dont get...Lets say its just me and you talking.

I tell you that I am concerned about Global Warming and the impact it will have on life, the environment, wildlife etc.

And you respond...."But how much is that going to cost?"

do you see the difference in priorities here?

This may surprise you and piss off my conservative friends, but I am a member of PETA.. have been for two years now. I'm a HUGE supporter of animal rights, to the extreme.. very very left of center. The difference? It's a FACT animals are discarded, abused, treated inhumanely on a daily basis.. Global warming proof?? NONE that sways me.. NONE.

I just hope you chose your words a little wrong. I too are all for the humane treatment of animals I wish not for one animal to suffer, but I also like steak.

I love my little doggie but he has no rights. He does not have the right to take a dump anywhere he so desires, he is a dog. Animals do not have rights people do. I am not pissed off at you, your heart is in the right place.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since Global Warming isnt real I'd expect to see reports where someone dismisses the entire idea instead of that republicans seem to walk the line and post stuff about people who say its not happening as fast, as hard, etc...

But not one that says its not happening and its not partially mans fault. You guys are getting there...I'm routing for you. One day you'll agree with science again like before Obama got into office

 

[bedowin62]

Since Global Warming isnt real I'd expect to see reports where someone dismisses the entire idea instead of that republicans seem to walk the line and post stuff about people who say its not happening as fast, as hard, etc...

But not one that says its not happening and its not partially mans fault. You guys are getting there...I'm routing for you. One day you'll agree with science again like before Obama got into office

why would you expect to see reports like that?
why does it have to be all one or the other?

you seem to be saying it isnt even possible that there IS global warming; but that it just may not be due to man; or not happening "as fast, as hard....etc"

if that's the case who is the knuckle-dragger denying all other possibilities?