Proof that AGW skeptics are stupid

[OohPooPahDoo]

Every single one of them will look at this graph:

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.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Co2 is a known greenhouse gas. That fact isn't based on "some forecasting projection model" - its a natural property of the gas.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

Co2 is a known greenhouse gas. That fact isn't based on "some forecasting projection model" - its a natural property of the gas.

True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Co2 is a known greenhouse gas. That fact isn't based on "some forecasting projection model" - its a natural property of the gas.

True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.

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:

Co2 and temp would appear to be well correlated for the past 800k years.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Co2 is a known greenhouse gas. That fact isn't based on "some forecasting projection model" - its a natural property of the gas.

True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.

Historic data does not disprove the claim that Co2 is a greenhouse gas.

No it doesn't. Now explain to me why that's important.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.

Historic data does not disprove the claim that Co2 is a greenhouse gas.

No it doesn't. Now explain to me why that's important.

Why is it important the Co2 is a greenhouse gas? See the plot in the OP.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Co2 is a known greenhouse gas. That fact isn't based on "some forecasting projection model" - its a natural property of the gas.

True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.

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:

Co2 and temp would appear to be well correlated for the past 800k years.

My graph is a combination of the works of C. R. Scotese and R. A. Berner.

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

True, but historic data doesn't support the claim that CO2 will cause earth destroying rises in temperatures.

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:

Co2 and temp would appear to be well correlated for the past 800k years.

My graph is a combination of the works of C. R. Scotese and R. A. Berner.

And what is your point with it? That Co2 and temperature have not always been strongly correlated?

 

[blastoff]

In grad school we ran a Vader Hix full stramula on CO 2 dissipation absorption kinetics and the results pretty much blew the theory out of the water.

 

[BlindBoo]

For a visual

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In grad school we ran a Vader Hix full stramula on CO 2 dissipation absorption kinetics and the results pretty much blew the theory out of the water.

I'm sure you published your findings.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

No, just proof that you're stupid.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

For a visual

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

So? The Earth is roughly 45,000,000,000 years old... the ice sheets aren't. They freeze, they melt. Did you miss this in 3rd grade science? But hey, go soil yourself...

 

[BlindBoo]

For a visual

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

So? The Earth is roughly 45,000,000,000 years old... the ice sheets aren't. They freeze, they melt. Did you miss this in 3rd grade science? But hey, go soil yourself...

You missed the age of the earth by about 40.5 billion years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[The Rabbi]

From the end of the Little Ice Age for the next 200 years temperatures warmed too. Yet there was no more CO2 than when the Earth was colder.
Proponents of global warming--oops, climate change, adhere to a religion. Nothing more.