Proof that AGW skeptics are stupid

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OohPooPahDoo, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Every single one of them will look at this graph:

    [​IMG]

    and tell you with a straight face we can't assume a causal relationship between man putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air. They will tell you that the 800 gigaton rise in Co2 over the industrial age is NOT due to man burning 1200 gigatons into the air during the industrial age, denying basic mathematical common sense.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Wacky Quacky
    Offline

    Wacky Quacky Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,824
    Thanks Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +376
    No, they'll tell you that there's no correlation between a rise in CO2 levels, and a following increase in temperatures. History, not some forecasting projection model, has shown that CO2 can fluctuate greatly without affecting temperatures.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Co2 is a known greenhouse gas. That fact isn't based on "some forecasting projection model" - its a natural property of the gas.
     
  4. Wacky Quacky
    Offline

    Wacky Quacky Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,824
    Thanks Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +376
    True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.
     
  5. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Historic data does not disprove the claim that Co2 is a greenhouse gas.


    Funny, BTW, how your graph doesn't tell us where the information came from. How do we know its not made up?

    This one tells us where the data came from:

    [​IMG]

    Co2 and temp would appear to be well correlated for the past 800k years.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  6. Wacky Quacky
    Offline

    Wacky Quacky Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,824
    Thanks Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +376
    No it doesn't. Now explain to me why that's important.
     
  7. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Why is it important the Co2 is a greenhouse gas? See the plot in the OP.
     
  8. Wacky Quacky
    Offline

    Wacky Quacky Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,824
    Thanks Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +376
    My graph is a combination of the works of C. R. Scotese and R. A. Berner.
     
  9. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page