Proof of AGW fraud

[jc456]

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

 

[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...

I'm actually wondering why you would not think the scientists at NASA were ya know, scientists.

But then, I remember the conservative idea of treating this a a simple political belief that denies the science.

 

[otto105]

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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...

I'm actually wondering why you would not think the scientists at NASA were ya know, scientists.

But then, I remember the conservative idea of treating this a a simple political belief that denies the science.

So you deny the left didn't let the political cat out of the bag years ago?

And this is not about environmental economic social justice as the likes of Naomi Klein claims?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Your the one who needs to shut the fuck up. YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

 

[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.

Your the one who needs to shut the fuck up. YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

 

[RealDave]

S

"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.

Your the one who needs to shut the fuck up. YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

How many charts have you seen logging the changes in our temperatures, the changes in CO2 concentrations, the changing amounts of man made emisions,.

THOSE, assfuck, are EMPIRICAL

 

[RealDave]

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid. Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.

 

[jc456]

S

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.

Your the one who needs to shut the fuck up. YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

How many charts have you seen logging the changes in our temperatures, the changes in CO2 concentrations, the changing amounts of man made emisions,.

THOSE, assfuck, are EMPIRICAL

when only a gif will do...

 

[otto105]

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.

 

[jc456]

Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid. Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.

you haven't explained measured temperature yet. why not? it was your claim.

 

[jc456]

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.

or not

 

[RealDave]

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...

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Dude,. it was answered several times.

man can be the onlt reason CO2 levels woulod rise. That, is stupid.
what post number?

Why? You are obviously too stupid to even read it or you wouldn't still be crying about it.

You think man is the only reason CO2 levels can rise. That is a sign of ignorance.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.

or not

Proof positive that it has no concept of the hypothesis and that it has no empirical evidence to support its position. In each case, it is incapable of articulating the problem or debating the empirical evidence that shows it a deception. All it has are one liners, appeals to authority, and degradation of the people kicking their asses with OBSERVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

GO figure..

 

[jc456]

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...

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Dude,. it was answered several times.

man can be the onlt reason CO2 levels woulod rise. That, is stupid.
what post number?

Why? You are obviously too stupid to even read it or you wouldn't still be crying about it.

You think man is the only reason CO2 levels can rise. That is a sign of ignorance.

 

[otto105]

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid. Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.

you haven't explained measured temperature yet. why not? it was your claim.

Again tell us why this is all wrong.... Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[RealDave]

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid. Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.

you haven't explained measured temperature yet. why not? it was your claim.

From WIKI: Temperature is a physical quantity expressing hot and cold. It is measured with a thermometer calibrated in one or more temperature scales. The most commonly used scales are the Celsius scale (formerly called centigrade) (denoted °C), Fahrenheit scale (denoted °F), and Kelvin scale (denoted K).

Or this frpm NOAA

• Air Temperature
  USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which measure air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station's datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station's official hourly temperature value.
  

OMG OMG OMG they are measuring temperature OMG OMG OMG

 

[otto105]

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?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.

or not

Proof positive that it has no concept of the hypothesis and that it has no empirical evidence to support its position. In each case, it is incapable of articulating the problem or debating the empirical evidence that shows it a deception. All it has are one liners, appeals to authority, and degradation of the people kicking their asses with OBSERVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

GO figure..

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Just try to convince anyone that all in that link is wrong.