On the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, still not a single bit of proof man has any effect on climate

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
The first official "Earth Day" was April 22, 1970. And the big concern then, was "Global Cooling".

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.

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.
 
Of course we have an effect on our climate. It's idiotic not to think we don't.

The question is (the one dimocraps keep avoiding):

How much?

How much are Man's activities affecting the climate?

Are we responsible for 90% of the change? 99%...... 10%..... 1%......... Or, more likely, .001%

dimocraps are dumber than the idol worshiping pagans of 3,000 years ago.

Because that's all this is......
 
They should rename it "Flat Earth" day in commemoration of the Flat Earth, anti-science nutjobs that believe this stupid AGW shit.
 
Of course we have an effect on our climate. It's idiotic not to think we don't.

The question is (the one dimocraps keep avoiding):

How much?

How much are Man's activities affecting the climate?

Are we responsible for 90% of the change? 99%...... 10%..... 1%......... Or, more likely, .001%

dimocraps are dumber than the idol worshiping pagans of 3,000 years ago.

Because that's all this is......

We know how much. We are responsible for the 80+ billion tons of ghgs we emit into the atmosphere each year, not to mention all the frigging other air pollutants, the destruction of 80% of the rainforests, the pollution going into our lakes, streams, underground - in our soils and aquifers, in our food, and in the ocean. But hey, that's progress (sarcasm).
 
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
'
'
'

Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in theatmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured byCO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
 
We know how much. We are responsible for the 80+ billion tons of ghgs we emit into the atmosphere each year, not to mention all the frigging other air pollutants, the destruction of 80% of the rainforests, the pollution going into our lakes, streams, underground - in our soils and aquifers, in our food, and in the ocean. But hey, that's progress (sarcasm).

I stopped reading after the first lie or two.

1. We might 'emit 80+ billion tons' of an imaginary something into the atmosphere but it sure as FUCK doesn't stay there.

2. The Rain Forests were actually hindering the absortpion of C02 because of their canopy. Their canopy prevented anything under them from growing besides lichens and fungi

3. You're an indoctrinated moron. Leave the hive

4. Who's talking about pollutants?

5. yer an idiot
 
We know how much. We are responsible for the 80+ billion tons of ghgs we emit into the atmosphere each year, not to mention all the frigging other air pollutants, the destruction of 80% of the rainforests, the pollution going into our lakes, streams, underground - in our soils and aquifers, in our food, and in the ocean. But hey, that's progress (sarcasm).

I stopped reading after the first lie or two.

1. We might 'emit 80+ billion tons' of an imaginary something into the atmosphere but it sure as FUCK doesn't stay there.

It doesn't stay there permanently, that is correct. However, CO2 has a residence in the atmosphere of at least 100 years, which results in manmade CO2 accumulating rapidly.

Edgetho said:
2. The Rain Forests were actually hindering the absortpion of C02 because of their canopy. Their canopy prevented anything under them from growing besides lichens and fungi.

You have to be the dumbest MF on the planet.

Explainer How much carbon can the world s forests absorb

Edgetho said:
3. You're an indoctrinated moron. Leave the hive

I was an environmental consultant for over 20 years. You?

edgetho said:
4. Who's talking about pollutants?

I am.

Edgetho said:
5. yer an idiot

Says the dumb arse who thinks rainforests are the problem.
 
The first official "Earth Day" was April 22, 1970. And the big concern then, was "Global Cooling".

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.

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.
Sure enough. Still not a single bit of proof. Nothing but theories piled on guesses piled on conjectures.

Looks like nothing ever changes in the liberals world of make-believe.
 
Wanna stop contributing to CO2 emissions?

Stop breathing. Every time you do, you exhale CO2.

The world would appreciate it, too
 
The first official "Earth Day" was April 22, 1970. And the big concern then, was "Global Cooling".

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.

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.
Sure enough. Still not a single bit of proof. Nothing but theories piled on guesses piled on conjectures.

Looks like nothing ever changes in the liberals world of make-believe.

Not surprisingly, that is exactly what the CEOs of the tobacco firms said about tobacco causing cancer. Congratulations.
 
The first official "Earth Day" was April 22, 1970. And the big concern then, was "Global Cooling".

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.

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.

We sure have an effect on pollution. Go visit China. And why do you think fish have so much Mercury?
 
We sure have an effect on pollution. Go visit China. And why do you think fish have so much Mercury?
Can I call 'em, or what?

Here we see the hysterical liberals are working on their **46th** year of changing the subject, bringing up irrelevancies, and general running away from the topic at maximum speed with their tails clamped firmly between their hind legs.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top