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.
If other events were being triggered, wouldn't CO2 levels be going down or at least staying the same? The truth is that they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Can you explain why? While you're at it, also explain what's happening to the energy absorbed by that CO2, given the Law of Conservation of Energy. It has to be doing something, considering that at least half of the reflected energy it absorbs should be re-emitted back towards earth.No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.
...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the foreseeable future, has ever been published.
Not one. In forty-five years.
No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week.
No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much.
No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.
And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you guessed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actual studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.
so you are saying that the climate didn't change and....it didn't get warmer?Wasn't one of the predictions of Global Warming that our children would never see snow
Of course not. See, there's your problem. You're just brainlessly parroting the fabricated stories that your masters told you to repeat.
Now, people of normal intelligence understand that snow in late November is common in the northern USA, and thus they laugh at anyone bleating the standard "Look! A snowflake! Global warming is a hoax!" denier cult mantra.
No, you stupid ass. Had you bothered to research, you would have found that the snow is occuring later in the fall, not earlier.Yet the statement does not delve into WHY the snow allegedly melts 14 days earlier.....Does the snow start falling earlier at the onset of Winter? OH wait a minute, the study was not interested in when the normal snowfall patterns began. Just when the snow melted.....Snow Melting 16 Days Earlier in Wyoming Mountains
The spring snowmelt now comes more than two weeks earlier than it did in the 1970s in Wyoming's Wind River Range, a new study finds.
The trend is part of a larger snow shortfall across the WesternUnited
"Earlier snowmelt impacts the water resources
And that kind of flap-yap is all you have.
Look, dumb fuck, the first person to note that there was something in the atmosphere that was absorbing hear was Joseph Fourier about 1820. In 1858 an English chemist, John Tyndall first measured the absorption spectra of the GHGs. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius first quantified the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and gave us an estimate of the total warming if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So we have been studying this for about 200 years.People have been "researching" this supposed manmade climate change for forty-five years. And after all that researching, all that screaming, all that denigration of those who don't see any evidence for it...
...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the foreseeable future, has ever been published.
Not one. In forty-five years.
Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:
1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.
2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).
3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.
No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.
And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you guessed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actual studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.
FORTY-FIVE YEARS. And not a single actual proof than man had anything to do with climate change. Or can do anything to change it back.
There's a reason for this. And it's similar to the reason why no chemical has ever been found that can turn lead into gold... something that has been "researched" for thousands of years.
And the reason is, because there just plain isn't any.
Go peddle your papers, manmade-global-whatever hysterics. You HAVE succeeded in convincing the rest of us of one thing: that you're selling snake oil, no matter how high a price you're charging for it. Nothing else could account for your complete failure to produce even ONE piece of proof, after all the resources you have expended (usually from other peoples' pockets) and forty-plus years of trying.
Why not join the Flat Earth Society? You'll find some people there, who have the mindset needed to believe you.
based on what exactly? do you know how warm that 35-40% is? Has someone demonstrated to you the dangers of CO2? Is that why you're so convinced?The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 35-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Seems like more than a pin prick to me.The climate has been changing for millions of years. It's the height of arrogance that some think we're something more than a pinprick effect.
I'm sorry, clearing throat, what is it you're trying to say here?No, you stupid ass. Had you bothered to research, you would have found that the snow is occuring later in the fall, not earlier.Yet the statement does not delve into WHY the snow allegedly melts 14 days earlier.....Does the snow start falling earlier at the onset of Winter? OH wait a minute, the study was not interested in when the normal snowfall patterns began. Just when the snow melted.....Snow Melting 16 Days Earlier in Wyoming Mountains
The spring snowmelt now comes more than two weeks earlier than it did in the 1970s in Wyoming's Wind River Range
The trend is part of a larger snow shortfall across the WesternUnited
"Earlier snowmelt impacts the water resources
And that kind of flap-yap is all you have.
so when it snows near winter it's extreme weather?"OK Scientists. Explain How Global Warming Is Causing Snowy/Blizzard Conditions In Northern States."
Climate change manifest as extremes in weather conditions, both unusually hot and cold.
It does not mean a 'uniform' warming everywhere, including cold regions during winter; indeed, extremely cold winters with heavy snowfall is evidence of climate change.
Moreover, it's ignorant nonsense to focus solely on one region as being 'representative' of climate change – as it's the cumulative weather conditions worldwide that demonstrate the effects of climate change.
When those hostile to the science of climate change point to snowy/blizzard conditions in northern states as 'proof' that the science is 'wrong,' they only exhibit their ignorance and stupidity.
And one needn't be a scientist to understand this fundamental principle.
when you point out denialism, you have three fingers pointing in your direction making your ownself aware of your denial. You do not wish to stop denying because it would mean that the denied would be implicated on something, and yet you deny. You deny that you lost, that the things you hold religious are gone. It is a sad state of affairs when your own denialism hits you in the puss. To myself who is a true believer, we must do but one thing......laugh our balls off.When I point out denialism is only a conspiracy cult, deniers should at least try to refrain from proving it by spewing more conspiracy babbling.
But then, deniers are now only preaching to the choir. Denier conspiracy ranting is like a crowd of Islamicists screaming "Allahu Ahkbar!". The point of it isn't to convert the infidels. The point of it is to whip up some mob enthusiasm, and to demonstrate to the other cultists what a loyal cultist you are yourself.
I hope so, I'll come watch them run around.so does anyone have the current forecast for North Dakota? are the girls there running around topless?
isn't he the one that had Herr Koch do his experiment in 1901? I thought so, and guess what, old Herr didn't find any doubling. What????????????Look, dumb fuck, the first person to note that there was something in the atmosphere that was absorbing hear was Joseph Fourier about 1820. In 1858 an English chemist, John Tyndall first measured the absorption spectra of the GHGs. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius first quantified the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and gave us an estimate of the total warming if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So we have been studying this for about 200 years.People have been "researching" this supposed manmade climate change for forty-five years. And after all that researching, all that screaming, all that denigration of those who don't see any evidence for it...
...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the foreseeable future, has ever been published.
Not one. In forty-five years.
Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:
1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.
2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).
3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.
No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.
And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you guessed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actual studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.
FORTY-FIVE YEARS. And not a single actual proof than man had anything to do with climate change. Or can do anything to change it back.
There's a reason for this. And it's similar to the reason why no chemical has ever been found that can turn lead into gold... something that has been "researched" for thousands of years.
And the reason is, because there just plain isn't any.
Go peddle your papers, manmade-global-whatever hysterics. You HAVE succeeded in convincing the rest of us of one thing: that you're selling snake oil, no matter how high a price you're charging for it. Nothing else could account for your complete failure to produce even ONE piece of proof, after all the resources you have expended (usually from other peoples' pockets) and forty-plus years of trying.
Why not join the Flat Earth Society? You'll find some people there, who have the mindset needed to believe you.
As for the rest of your drivel, why the hell don't you take some basic high school level science course. Obvious that you are not ready for college level courses.
you and Bill Clinton !!!I hope so, I'll come watch them run around.so does anyone have the current forecast for North Dakota? are the girls there running around topless?
that's it, me and the ex pres. wow, even better, maybe we can get the girls to smoke a cigar.you and Bill Clinton !!!I hope so, I'll come watch them run around.so does anyone have the current forecast for North Dakota? are the girls there running around topless?
I'm sorry, clearing throat, what is it you're trying to say here?No, you stupid ass. Had you bothered to research, you would have found that the snow is occuring later in the fall, not earlier.Yet the statement does not delve into WHY the snow allegedly melts 14 days earlier.....Does the snow start falling earlier at the onset of Winter? OH wait a minute, the study was not interested in when the normal snowfall patterns began. Just when the snow melted.....Snow Melting 16 Days Earlier in Wyoming Mountains
The spring snowmelt now comes more than two weeks earlier than it did in the 1970s in Wyoming's Wind River Range
The trend is part of a larger snow shortfall across the WesternUnited
"Earlier snowmelt impacts the water resources
And that kind of flap-yap is all you have.
