Proof of AGW fraud

[otto105]

Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

That's laughable.

 

[otto105]

Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

 

[SSDD]

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

That's laughable.

Yes, it is laughable, and quite sad that you actually believe you have posted any science whatsoever to support your position...don't worry about it though..no one ever expected you to because there is none.

 

[SSDD]

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

 

[RealDave]

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

well sure, there's still ice in the arctics correct?

you know when ice melts there, CO2 is added to the atmosphere? right? does the ice melt yearly in summer? and then add up 11,700 years of melt and refreeze. dude.

Melting ace does not release CO2.

ohkay Francis what happens to it then?

It is not the melting ice like on Antarctica. It was the ice melting released a bunch of trapped CO2.

dude, seriously?

I understand that you deniers are a few briocks short of a load.

You can't differentiate the ideas that ice melting does not release CO2. Take an ice cube & set it on the table and as it melts, it does not release CO2.

Now if there is an ice cap over say land, the ice cap melting can release CO2 that was trapped under the ice.

It is truly sad that you people are too stupid to get it.

 

[RealDave]

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

 

[RealDave]

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

how did they do that?

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

 

[RealDave]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

 

[skookerasbil]

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

lol.....please post of some evidence anybody is caring a wit about this s0n? This PPM argument has been a talking point for climate crusaders for many, many years........absolutely nobody is impressed.

Don't forget......we need links displaying where the science is mattering in the real world??!

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

Well heres the thing.........the public certainly thinks that AGW is fake news. 100% certainty. Why do you think all these climate treaty's are total frauds? Why is renewable energy still a massive joke?

Its because the public considers AGW to be this massive crock. Duh..........when is the last time Congress has ever brought a climate change bill to the floor? Nobody remembers!!. They don't want their constituents thinking they are graduates of the University of Mars.

 

[SSDD]

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?

 

[SSDD]

how did they do that?

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

 

[skookerasbil]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

Again s0n...........the anger and frustration, clearly conveyed by you here screams, "This guy is making me look st00pid and I'm loSiNg!!"



We dominate in this forum because we convey a perception of winning.........we are routinely laughing our balls off!!

Go check out one of the most ePiC threads on this whole board, MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING....... will have 1/2 a million "views" soon. Then go look at how many "views" the threads started by the climate crusaders get?

 

[SSDD]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

 

[Wyatt earp]

how did they do that?

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

 

[RealDave]

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

You are, without a doubt, the biggest fool here.

I'm sticking with NASA.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[RealDave]

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

Mars has a much thionner atmosphere than Earth or Venus & is much further from the Sun.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

You are, without a doubt, the biggest fool here.

I'm sticking with NASA.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

From your own link, what happened to your claim people will be starving?

• Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

 

[RealDave]

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

 

[Wyatt earp]

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

Mars has a much thionner atmosphere than Earth or Venus & is much further from the Sun.

You do know I just set you up right?



So now you claiming the Sun has an effect? How astute of you ....

Lol...you stupid.


.