Please post all scholarly articles opposed to anthropogenic global warming here

[Chris]

And yet there has been no noticable increase in ground temperature on earth since 1998. Go figure.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Why do you keep using the 2007 summation when the 2008 is readily available. Not trying to be deceptive are we. AGW followers would never resort to such bafoonery, right?

Perhaps you don't know what year it is yet?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

From your own link....

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.

It is going to be 80 degrees here in Virginia today.

 

[Meister]

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Why do you keep using the 2007 summation when the 2008 is readily available. Not trying to be deceptive are we. AGW followers would never resort to such bafoonery, right?

Perhaps you don't know what year it is yet?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

From your own link....

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.

It is going to be 80 degrees here in Virginia today.

It's going to be 33 here in Coeur D'Alene, Id....10 degrees below normal. So where is the tic for tac going to take us, Chris??

 

[Chris]

Why do you keep using the 2007 summation when the 2008 is readily available. Not trying to be deceptive are we. AGW followers would never resort to such bafoonery, right?

Perhaps you don't know what year it is yet?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

From your own link....

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.

It is going to be 80 degrees here in Virginia today.

It's going to be 33 here in Coeur D'Alene, Id....10 degrees below normal. So where is the tic for tac going to take us, Chris??

To the conclusion that the earth is warming because of increased CO2.

 

[Meister]

From your own link....

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.

It is going to be 80 degrees here in Virginia today.

It's going to be 33 here in Coeur D'Alene, Id....10 degrees below normal. So where is the tic for tac going to take us, Chris??

To the conclusion that the earth is warming because of increased CO2.

I see your logic. because it's going to be 80 in Virgina, there is Global warming because of CO2, but it's only going to get to 33 in Id....that is discounted. I get it.

 

[Chris]

It's going to be 33 here in Coeur D'Alene, Id....10 degrees below normal. So where is the tic for tac going to take us, Chris??

To the conclusion that the earth is warming because of increased CO2.

I see your logic. because it's going to be 80 in Virgina, there is Global warming because of CO2, but it's only going to get to 33 in Id....that is discounted. I get it.

No, you don't.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We continue to add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

 

[Meister]

To the conclusion that the earth is warming because of increased CO2.

I see your logic. because it's going to be 80 in Virgina, there is Global warming because of CO2, but it's only going to get to 33 in Id....that is discounted. I get it.

No, you don't.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We continue to add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

I knew I could get that broken record started. Ahhh, it's going to be a great day.

 

[FactFinder]

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Why do you keep using the 2007 summation when the 2008 is readily available. Not trying to be deceptive are we. AGW followers would never resort to such bafoonery, right?

Perhaps you don't know what year it is yet?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

From your own link....

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.

It is going to be 80 degrees here in Virginia today.

It was the coolest since 2000. Of course it was one of the highest because we are still coming down from the peak. When you climb Everest you reach the summit (highest point) then on your way down, at the early stages, you are still among the highest elevations. That has no relevance to the point you are descending. What a non sensical thing to say. Drips the bloody bias all over the place.

Here is the temperature trend:

 

[Chris]

Why do you keep using the 2007 summation when the 2008 is readily available. Not trying to be deceptive are we. AGW followers would never resort to such bafoonery, right?

Perhaps you don't know what year it is yet?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

From your own link....

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.

It is going to be 80 degrees here in Virginia today.

It was the coolest since 2000. Of course it was one of the highest because we are still coming down from the peak. When you climb Everest you reach the summit (highest point) then on your way down, at the early stages, you are still among the highest elevations. That has no relevance to the point you are descending. What a non sensical thing to say. Drips the bloody bias all over the place.

Here is the temperature trend:

Link?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

When did it become the "concensus" that global warming #1, exists, and #2, is caused by man?

Prove that it is, and I'll take the time to pull up all the crap I posted last week from Nasa, National Geographic, so on and so forth which points out it's idiotic.

LOL. Like hell you did.

And there is, indeed, an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, that it is a clear and present danger to our civilization, and that the primary driver is anthropogenic GHGs.

A consensus that includes every single scientific society in the world.

A consensus that includes every single National Academy of Science in the world.

A consensus that includes every major university in the world.

A consensus that includes most private scientific organizations that do real research.

No... there is NOT a consensus... there is the projected MYTH, the erroneous BELIEF that there is a consensus... what's more, a consensus on inaccurate data, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE... you're argument is that BECAUSE A CONCENSUS EXIST: THE EXISTANCE OF A WOULD-BE CONSENSUS IS, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE POSITION PROJECTED BY A CONSENSUS IS TRUE...

Now let's define 'consensus.'

n
1. broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group
After hours of deliberation, they finally reached a consensus.

2. view of society in equilibrium: a concept of society in which the absence of conflict is seen as the equilibrium state of society


[Mid-17th century. < Latin < past participle of consentire (see consent)]


Now let's examine the consensus among Americans that there is a God, that God is the source of our inalienable human rights and that those rights rest upon the indisputable authority of the supreme being.

That's a position which enjoys broad unanimity... a general and widespread accpetance, one which is held in significant agreement by a large portion of the culture, as well as the theological and scientific community.

Yet the mere EXISTANCE OF THIS CONSENSUS is not accepted by it's opposition as certain proof that the underlying position is TRUE...


Now you being part and parcel of that opposition, one has to wonder how you're able to square these two diametrically opposing perspectives...

This OP is designed to buttress the myth that a high volume of 'scholarly articles' which proclaim that AGW is real, trumps a low number of articles which state the opposite.

The erroneous conclusion being that a popularly held opinion is a true and valid opinion...

This is the same tactics which the Progressives; the Advocates of Social Science used in the late 19th and early 20th century to PROVE: EUGENICS as SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Eugenics was considered to be incontestable; eugenics was: ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC FACT... The "Consensus" that eugenics was INCONTESTABLE FACT was FAR MORE PREVELANT IN THE SCIENTIFIC (read: academic) COMMUNITY than AGW is today; and public contests of Eugenics brought deafening admonitions proclaiming the naysayer a Scientific HERETIC!

Of course ya don't here much about Eugenics any more... and when ya do, it's usually within the context of Dr. Mengele, the NAZI widely known for his "Human Experiments..."; and when a discussion of the Muskegee Experiment comes along, it's a rare point that notes that these "experiments" were a direct and indisputable function of "Eugenics."

Of course academia brought the world these trots into popular idiocy and it can't be ignored that academia also writes the history; a history which academia has opted to rationalize that such ABJECT IDIOCY was a function of their opposition... and can NEVER be said to have been a result of the short sighted ignorance of bed-rock principle; which stands as little more than the advocacy of Left-think Cultism; which rested upon NOTHING BUT POPULAR CONCENSUS; a consensus which brought the world NOTHING except the usual result of lending credence to Left-think: choas, calamity and catastrophe.

Understand that the AGW crowd is nothing beyond the latest means of the Academic Left to find power through pseudo-science, which they use to frighten the masses; fear which encourages the popular consensus and the fear based consensus is thus used to cower those who would contest it... All of which is designed to feed upon itself and perpetuate the inevitable; which despite their BELIEFS... that inevitability rests ONLY IN THE CERTAINTY THAT THE RESULT OF THEIR CAMPAIGN WILL BE A LITANNY OF "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES... ." Consequences for which they BELIEVE THEY CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE... . As they BELIEVE they are protected by the intellectual cloister which is represented BY THEIR "INTENTIONS."

It's a lie; a lie of the Secular Church of Popular Pseudo-Science, folks... plain and simple. And that they BELIEVE otherwise is of absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the reality that policy which is founded upon that lie will lead directly to Chaos, Calamity and CATASTROPHE.

 

[Old Rocks]

Publius;

No... there is NOT a consensus... there is the projected MYTH, the erroneous BELIEF that there is a consensus... what's more, a consensus on inaccurate data, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE... you're argument is that BECAUSE A CONCENSUS EXIST: THE EXISTANCE OF A WOULD-BE CONSENSUS IS, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE POSITION PROJECTED BY A CONSENSUS IS TRUE...
...................................................................................................

As I pointed out, on the scientific subject of global warming, among the people that study the subject, there is an overwhelming consensus.

Play your verbage games, play with semanitcs all you please. That does not change the fact that you are simply argueing ideology on a scientific subject.

All the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities say one thing, you say another.

Guess who has the most credibility.

 

[FactFinder]

Publius;

No... there is NOT a consensus... there is the projected MYTH, the erroneous BELIEF that there is a consensus... what's more, a consensus on inaccurate data, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE... you're argument is that BECAUSE A CONCENSUS EXIST: THE EXISTANCE OF A WOULD-BE CONSENSUS IS, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE POSITION PROJECTED BY A CONSENSUS IS TRUE...
...................................................................................................

As I pointed out, on the scientific subject of global warming, among the people that study the subject, there is an overwhelming consensus.

Play your verbage games, play with semanitcs all you please. That does not change the fact that you are simply argueing ideology on a scientific subject.

All the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities say one thing, you say another.



Guess who has the most credibility.

Why these guys do:

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made • The Register
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Track this topic Print story Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

Japanese IPCC scientists says global warming &#8220;worst scientific scandal&#8221; - Orange Punch - OCRegister.com

Japanese IPCC scientists says global warming “worst scientific scandal”
June 18th, 2008, 6:20 am · 9 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum
The global warming “consensus” not only never existed, what there was of it continues to shrink.

The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as a top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on the IPCC and calls warming fears the “Worst scientific scandal in the history.”

 

[FactFinder]

And these guys:


Global Warming Petition Project
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

and these guys:

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, set to be held March 8-10th in New York at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel, will bring together scientists, economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists to "confront the issue of global warming." These specialists, all climate change skeptics, aim to call attention "to new research that contradicts claims that Earth&#8217;s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions." [1] The conference is being organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tank that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming. Contents [hide]
1 Funding the Conference
2 Building on 2008 and the NIPCC
3 Conference speakers
4 Conference co-sponsors
5 Conference website
6 Articles and resources
6.1 Related SourceWatch articles
6.2 References
6.3 External resources
6.4 External articles

[edit]Funding the Conference
On its conference website, the Heartland Institute states that "all of the event&#8217;s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted."[2] However, it does not disclose which foundations are contributing to the conference.

While the admission fees are quite high, the Heartland Institute appears to be willing to subsidize the fees of anyone who signs their global warming petition. As described in the Guardian, "the generous souls at the Heartland Institute are offering a special 20% discount on the $720 registration fee. All you have to do to qualify is put your name to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which to date has been signed by 31,072 American scientists, 'including 9,021 with PhDs.'" [3]

 

[Old Rocks]

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [3] Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Publius;

No... there is NOT a consensus... there is the projected MYTH, the erroneous BELIEF that there is a consensus... what's more, a consensus on inaccurate data, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE... you're argument is that BECAUSE A CONCENSUS EXIST: THE EXISTANCE OF A WOULD-BE CONSENSUS IS, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE POSITION PROJECTED BY A CONSENSUS IS TRUE...
...................................................................................................

As I pointed out, on the scientific subject of global warming, among the people that study the subject, there is an overwhelming consensus.

Play your verbage games, play with semanitcs all you please. That does not change the fact that you are simply argueing ideology on a scientific subject.

All the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities say one thing, you say another.

Guess who has the most credibility.

ROFLMNAO... Yet another would be 'intellectual' who comes to stand on the lofty heights of the subjective sciences, holding such as the breadth and scope of all wisdom... only to denigrate the objective study of language; and this due to the objective science undermining the fallacious argument born of the subjective science.

Where there is a consensus, that opinion rests with those who are pushing their own agenda; whether that agenda be one which feathers their means to eat, by funding the programs which they are being paid to operate or whether they advance the assualt on capitalism which they find ideoligically offensive or BOTH.

The simple fact is that the earth atmosphic temperatures are effected by the THE ONLY TANGIBLE MEANS OF ENERGY relevant ot the earth... which is THE SUN... thus the distance from the sun to the earth and the energy being emitted by the sun are the two PRIMARY FACTORS which effect the earths atmospheric temperatures... both of which are cyclical and BOTH of which are directly correlated to the cycles of the earth's temperature. Beyond that, the earth's magnetic field... is next and after that the earths natural emmissions relevant to outgasses from the melting methane of sub-ocean sea ice and volcanic outgassing... and coming on DEAD FUCKING LAST is the emission of human industry... which by comparison to the earth's natural outgassing is infinitesimal.

The simple fact is that IF the human species made heating the earth it's sole focus... setting aside all other human endeavors... if the means of humanity to heat the earth stood as the only potential link to our survival as a species... we'd be FUCKED... as there is absolutely no means by which humanity could produce enough carbon emmissions to heat the atmophere against a cooling cycle of the Sun and ebbing earth orbit from the sun...

Again... this entire farce will go the way of Eugenics... and in your great grand childrens generation, there will be little note if it having ever happened, except where the academics seek to set the calamitous effects of government policy born of AGW upon the political Right... Meaning that the Left will revise history to show that the economic collapse which resulted out of Cap and Trade and other Leftist policy to support the anti-Capitalist AGW farce, was because of the Ideological Right... not distinct at all from their revisions which seek to foist Fascism and Communism upon the ideological Right, despite the notions being SOLELY a function of the ideological left.

 

[Chris]

Publius;

No... there is NOT a consensus... there is the projected MYTH, the erroneous BELIEF that there is a consensus... what's more, a consensus on inaccurate data, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE... you're argument is that BECAUSE A CONCENSUS EXIST: THE EXISTANCE OF A WOULD-BE CONSENSUS IS, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE POSITION PROJECTED BY A CONSENSUS IS TRUE...
...................................................................................................

As I pointed out, on the scientific subject of global warming, among the people that study the subject, there is an overwhelming consensus.

Play your verbage games, play with semanitcs all you please. That does not change the fact that you are simply argueing ideology on a scientific subject.

All the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities say one thing, you say another.

Guess who has the most credibility.

ROFLMNAO... Yet another would be 'intellectual' who comes to stand on the lofty heights of the subjective sciences, holding such as the breadth and scope of all wisdom... only to denigrate the objective study of language; and this due to the objective science undermining the fallacious argument born of the subjective science.

Where there is a consensus, that opinion rests with those who are pushing their own agenda; whether that agenda be one which feathers their means to eat, by funding the programs which they are being paid to operate or whether they advance the assualt on capitalism which they find ideoligically offensive or BOTH.

The simple fact is that the earth atmosphic temperatures are effected by the THE ONLY TANGIBLE MEANS OF ENERGY relevant ot the earth... which is THE SUN... thus the distance from the sun to the earth and the energy being emitted by the sun are the two PRIMARY FACTORS which effect the earths atmospheric temperatures... both of which are cyclical and BOTH of which are directly correlated to the cycles of the earth's temperature. Beyond that, the earth's magnetic field... is next and after that the earths natural emmissions relevant to outgasses from the melting methane of sub-ocean sea ice and volcanic outgassing... and coming on DEAD FUCKING LAST is the emission of human industry... which by comparison to the earth's natural outgassing is infinitesimal.

The simple fact is that IF the human species made heating the earth it's sole focus... setting aside all other human endeavors... if the means of humanity to heat the earth stood as the only potential link to our survival as a species... we'd be FUCKED... as there is absolutely no means by which humanity could produce enough carbon emmissions to heat the atmophere against a cooling cycle of the Sun and ebbing earth orbit from the sun...

Again... this entire farce will go the way of Eugenics... and in your great grand childrens generation, there will be little note if it having ever happened, except where the academics seek to set the calamitous effects of government policy born of AGW upon the political Right... Meaning that the Left will revise history to show that the economic collapse which resulted out of Cap and Trade and other Leftist policy to support the anti-Capitalist AGW farce, was because of the Ideological Right... not distinct at all from their revisions which seek to foist Fascism and Communism upon the ideological Right, despite the notions being SOLELY a function of the ideological left.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

 

[del]

Publius;

No... there is NOT a consensus... there is the projected MYTH, the erroneous BELIEF that there is a consensus... what's more, a consensus on inaccurate data, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE... you're argument is that BECAUSE A CONCENSUS EXIST: THE EXISTANCE OF A WOULD-BE CONSENSUS IS, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE POSITION PROJECTED BY A CONSENSUS IS TRUE...
...................................................................................................

As I pointed out, on the scientific subject of global warming, among the people that study the subject, there is an overwhelming consensus.

Play your verbage games, play with semanitcs all you please. That does not change the fact that you are simply argueing ideology on a scientific subject.

All the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities say one thing, you say another.

Guess who has the most credibility.

ROFLMNAO... Yet another would be 'intellectual' who comes to stand on the lofty heights of the subjective sciences, holding such as the breadth and scope of all wisdom... only to denigrate the objective study of language; and this due to the objective science undermining the fallacious argument born of the subjective science.

Where there is a consensus, that opinion rests with those who are pushing their own agenda; whether that agenda be one which feathers their means to eat, by funding the programs which they are being paid to operate or whether they advance the assualt on capitalism which they find ideoligically offensive or BOTH.

The simple fact is that the earth atmosphic temperatures are effected by the THE ONLY TANGIBLE MEANS OF ENERGY relevant ot the earth... which is THE SUN... thus the distance from the sun to the earth and the energy being emitted by the sun are the two PRIMARY FACTORS which effect the earths atmospheric temperatures... both of which are cyclical and BOTH of which are directly correlated to the cycles of the earth's temperature. Beyond that, the earth's magnetic field... is next and after that the earths natural emmissions relevant to outgasses from the melting methane of sub-ocean sea ice and volcanic outgassing... and coming on DEAD FUCKING LAST is the emission of human industry... which by comparison to the earth's natural outgassing is infinitesimal.

The simple fact is that IF the human species made heating the earth it's sole focus... setting aside all other human endeavors... if the means of humanity to heat the earth stood as the only potential link to our survival as a species... we'd be FUCKED... as there is absolutely no means by which humanity could produce enough carbon emmissions to heat the atmophere against a cooling cycle of the Sun and ebbing earth orbit from the sun...

Again... this entire farce will go the way of Eugenics... and in your great grand childrens generation, there will be little note if it having ever happened, except where the academics seek to set the calamitous effects of government policy born of AGW upon the political Right... Meaning that the Left will revise history to show that the economic collapse which resulted out of Cap and Trade and other Leftist policy to support the anti-Capitalist AGW farce, was because of the Ideological Right... not distinct at all from their revisions which seek to foist Fascism and Communism upon the ideological Right, despite the notions being SOLELY a function of the ideological left.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

hey, rain man, i already told you-no atmosphere.

find a NEW stupid question, otay?

 

[Chris]

ROFLMNAO... Yet another would be 'intellectual' who comes to stand on the lofty heights of the subjective sciences, holding such as the breadth and scope of all wisdom... only to denigrate the objective study of language; and this due to the objective science undermining the fallacious argument born of the subjective science.

Where there is a consensus, that opinion rests with those who are pushing their own agenda; whether that agenda be one which feathers their means to eat, by funding the programs which they are being paid to operate or whether they advance the assualt on capitalism which they find ideoligically offensive or BOTH.

The simple fact is that the earth atmosphic temperatures are effected by the THE ONLY TANGIBLE MEANS OF ENERGY relevant ot the earth... which is THE SUN... thus the distance from the sun to the earth and the energy being emitted by the sun are the two PRIMARY FACTORS which effect the earths atmospheric temperatures... both of which are cyclical and BOTH of which are directly correlated to the cycles of the earth's temperature. Beyond that, the earth's magnetic field... is next and after that the earths natural emmissions relevant to outgasses from the melting methane of sub-ocean sea ice and volcanic outgassing... and coming on DEAD FUCKING LAST is the emission of human industry... which by comparison to the earth's natural outgassing is infinitesimal.

The simple fact is that IF the human species made heating the earth it's sole focus... setting aside all other human endeavors... if the means of humanity to heat the earth stood as the only potential link to our survival as a species... we'd be FUCKED... as there is absolutely no means by which humanity could produce enough carbon emmissions to heat the atmophere against a cooling cycle of the Sun and ebbing earth orbit from the sun...

Again... this entire farce will go the way of Eugenics... and in your great grand childrens generation, there will be little note if it having ever happened, except where the academics seek to set the calamitous effects of government policy born of AGW upon the political Right... Meaning that the Left will revise history to show that the economic collapse which resulted out of Cap and Trade and other Leftist policy to support the anti-Capitalist AGW farce, was because of the Ideological Right... not distinct at all from their revisions which seek to foist Fascism and Communism upon the ideological Right, despite the notions being SOLELY a function of the ideological left.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

hey, rain man, i already told you-no atmosphere.

find a NEW stupid question, otay?

You are half right.

Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2 and absorbs heat.

That's the reason.

So CO2 makes Venus warmer than Mercury, even though Mercury gets FOUR TIMES as much solar radiation.

The Earth is no different. The 40% increase in CO2 is warming the Earth.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

hey, rain man, i already told you-no atmosphere.

find a NEW stupid question, otay?

You are half right.

Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2 and absorbs heat.

That's the reason.

So CO2 makes Venus warmer than Mercury, even though Mercury gets FOUR TIMES as much solar radiation.

The Earth is no different. The 40% increase in CO2 is warming the Earth.

ROFLMNAO... Uh... Chrissy... Now you're saying that the atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2... which is true... like almost all of it; 96%... the rest is 3.5% nitrogen... with a small dose of the usual suspects...

The question becomes... where did all that CO2 come from sis? Unbridled Capitalism? Was there a highly productive culture which unfairly used the majority of resources and pumped massive quantities of hydro-carbons into the Venutian atmosphere and stubbornly refused to listen to their feminized opposition and reduce emmissions in time to "SAVE MOTHER VENUS!"?

The fact is that Veus is nothing like earth... except it has an atmosphere... and from there the similarities fall right off... the Venution magnetic field is nearly non-existant compared to that of Earth's and given it's atmosphere this accounts for the margin increase in the Venution surface temp over that of Mercury which sits 36 million miles closer to the sun...

The analogy is AS USUAL: absurd...

 

[Chris]

Pubes, nothing absurd about it.

Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect of CO2.