Record -135.8 in Antarctica is Obviously Evidence of algore's Global Warming...

[BlindBoo]

CO2 does NOT drive climate.

So it is nothing but talking points based on religious AGW belief over any real science.

Can you point to the "real science" that you read on this issue?

Can you post the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Who said CO2 drives the climate? Everyone knows it's the sun that has the most influence.

 

[Kosh]

Can you point to the "real science" that you read on this issue?

Can you post the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Didn't think you could. Thanks for proving me right.

Exactly you can not prove that CO2 does drive climate and thus shows that AGW is a religious belief and not based on science.

 

[Kosh]

Can you point to the "real science" that you read on this issue?

Can you post the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Who said CO2 drives the climate? Everyone knows it's the sun that has the most influence.

The AGW church makes that claim however:

 

[RDD_1210]

Can you post the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Didn't think you could. Thanks for proving me right.

Exactly you can not prove that CO2 does drive climate and thus shows that AGW is a religious belief and not based on science.

LOL. I can point to plenty of scientific research and data that supports the existence of man made global warming. You can't post an ounce of shit that supports anything you "believe".

 

[Kosh]

Didn't think you could. Thanks for proving me right.

Exactly you can not prove that CO2 does drive climate and thus shows that AGW is a religious belief and not based on science.

LOL. I can point to plenty of scientific research and data that supports the existence of man made global warming. You can't post an ounce of shit that supports anything you "believe".

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

 

[Edgetho]

It's comforting to know that right wingers remain profoundly stupid regarding science.

dimocraps are lying, scum-sucking slime. It's what they do.....

All of them.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

From the original paper cited in the article you refer to:

" . . . the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks."

At least they're honest.

How many Hundreds of BILLIONS have gone into the AGW Hoax?

Think a 'scientist' knows which side his bread is buttered on?

 

[BlindBoo]

Can you post the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Who said CO2 drives the climate? Everyone knows it's the sun that has the most influence.

The AGW church makes that claim however:

Then it shouldn't be hard to post a link to the Church of AGW where this belief is stated plainly. I can't find any scientist who claims CO2 drives the Climate. Not one. Everyone says it's the sun that drives planet earths climate. But people of faith do believe in some pretty weird and crazy shit in the name of their supernatural being(s) so.........

 

[Edgetho]

Exactly you can not prove that CO2 does drive climate and thus shows that AGW is a religious belief and not based on science.

LOL. I can point to plenty of scientific research and data that supports the existence of man made global warming. You can't post an ounce of shit that supports anything you "believe".

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

Uh... It doesn't. They've already conceded that.

What I wanna know is how AGW causes the Jet Stream to move. Which is a prime mover of weather and/or climate.

I'd also like to know how AGW causes the Gulf Stream to move.

I'd also like to know how AGW caused the Arctic Ice Cap to grow by 29% in one year.

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

oooopsie Now it's up to 60%

Global Cooling: Arctic Ice Cap Grows 60 Percent In A Year [NASA PHOTO] - International Science Times

And why is Antarctic Ice at a new record?

NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent | Watts Up With That?

Y'know..... Has anyone started to think that maybe dimocraps are lying scumbags?

Maybe?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Cold dis-comfort: Antarctica set record of -135.8

Why wouldn't it be?...

Of course we all know that's why Liberals stopped using "Global Warming" and moved to the more Generic and almost Undeniable "Climate Change"...

Climate Change is a Constant... Not up for Debate.

But the Left is so Dishonest and so in Need of Punishment for the Wealth they enjoy in our Society that they will blame whatever "abnormal" weather is happening our Country's Wealth and Consumption.

We are not Hurting the Earth... And as a Country we are on a daily basis better about being clean than we were the day before.

But that's not enough for the Left... Nope... Because they don't want us being the best... It's not fair.

The "Global Warming/Man-Made Climate Change" Claims are a Lie... And what's Tragic is that most Liberals KNOW they are Lying.

That really Concerns me.



peace...

Ahem.....From the end of the article you are referring to:

"""Just because one spot on Earth has set records for cold that has little to do with global warming because it is one spot in one place, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA's former chief scientist.

Both Abdalati, who wasn't part of the measurement team, and Scambos said this is likely an unusual random reading in a place that hasn't been measured much before and could have been colder or hotter in the past and we wouldn't know.""

Fiddle Dee Dee, Scarlett. Try reading to the end of an article instead of just the headline and save some face.

(snicker)

 

[Edgetho]

Cold dis-comfort: Antarctica set record of -135.8

Why wouldn't it be?...

Of course we all know that's why Liberals stopped using "Global Warming" and moved to the more Generic and almost Undeniable "Climate Change"...

Climate Change is a Constant... Not up for Debate.

But the Left is so Dishonest and so in Need of Punishment for the Wealth they enjoy in our Society that they will blame whatever "abnormal" weather is happening our Country's Wealth and Consumption.

We are not Hurting the Earth... And as a Country we are on a daily basis better about being clean than we were the day before.

But that's not enough for the Left... Nope... Because they don't want us being the best... It's not fair.

The "Global Warming/Man-Made Climate Change" Claims are a Lie... And what's Tragic is that most Liberals KNOW they are Lying.

That really Concerns me.



peace...

Ahem.....From the end of the article you are referring to:

"""Just because one spot on Earth has set records for cold that has little to do with global warming because it is one spot in one place, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA's former chief scientist.

Both Abdalati, who wasn't part of the measurement team, and Scambos said this is likely an unusual random reading in a place that hasn't been measured much before and could have been colder or hotter in the past and we wouldn't know.""

Fiddle Dee Dee, Scarlett. Try reading to the end of an article instead of just the headline and save some face.

(snicker)

So..... Antarctica isn't part of the Globe? Is that right? Antarctica is somehow immune to the effects of 'Global Warming" because the entire CONTINENT got a special permission slip from ManBearPig or something?

One of the stupidest fucking excuses I've ever heard

Believe what you will, moron. You always, always do.

 

[Kosh]

Who said CO2 drives the climate? Everyone knows it's the sun that has the most influence.

The AGW church makes that claim however:

Then it shouldn't be hard to post a link to the Church of AGW where this belief is stated plainly. I can't find any scientist who claims CO2 drives the Climate. Not one. Everyone says it's the sun that drives planet earths climate. But people of faith do believe in some pretty weird and crazy shit in the name of their supernatural being(s) so.........

The whole premise of AGW is that CO2 drives climate.

 

[Freemason9]

Exactly you can not prove that CO2 does drive climate and thus shows that AGW is a religious belief and not based on science.

LOL. I can point to plenty of scientific research and data that supports the existence of man made global warming. You can't post an ounce of shit that supports anything you "believe".

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

CO2 as a gas is a greenhouse gas. That has been proven with certainty. Greenhouse gasses absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths. That has been proven with certainty. Empirically, then, one could conclude that an increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere corresponds with an increase in infrared absorbtion.

Tell me to stop if I've lost you yet . . .

An increase in the amount of absorbed IR radiation results in an increase in the mean temperature OVER THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

Get it, yet? If not, I recommend that you steer clear of science.

 

[Kosh]

LOL. I can point to plenty of scientific research and data that supports the existence of man made global warming. You can't post an ounce of shit that supports anything you "believe".

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

CO2 as a gas is a greenhouse gas. That has been proven with certainty. Greenhouse gasses absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths. That has been proven with certainty. Empirically, then, one could conclude that an increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere corresponds with an increase in infrared absorbtion.

Tell me to stop if I've lost you yet . . .

An increase in the amount of absorbed IR radiation results in an increase in the mean temperature OVER THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

Get it, yet? If not, I recommend that you steer clear of science.

And the AGW church keeps on with it's propaganda.

 

[Freemason9]

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

CO2 as a gas is a greenhouse gas. That has been proven with certainty. Greenhouse gasses absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths. That has been proven with certainty. Empirically, then, one could conclude that an increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere corresponds with an increase in infrared absorbtion.

Tell me to stop if I've lost you yet . . .

An increase in the amount of absorbed IR radiation results in an increase in the mean temperature OVER THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

Get it, yet? If not, I recommend that you steer clear of science.

And the AGW church keeps on with it's propaganda.

WTF??

Do you ever work with facts? Sheesh.

 

[Kosh]

CO2 as a gas is a greenhouse gas. That has been proven with certainty. Greenhouse gasses absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths. That has been proven with certainty. Empirically, then, one could conclude that an increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere corresponds with an increase in infrared absorbtion.

Tell me to stop if I've lost you yet . . .

An increase in the amount of absorbed IR radiation results in an increase in the mean temperature OVER THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

Get it, yet? If not, I recommend that you steer clear of science.

And the AGW church keeps on with it's propaganda.

WTF??

Do you ever work with facts? Sheesh.

Facts? WOW! When you post one it will be monumental.

Here are some facts for you:

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

•CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
•The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
•"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
•Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
•96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
•Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
•Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
•Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
•The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
•Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
•Climate models have no predictive value
•Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

 

[RDD_1210]

The AGW church makes that claim however:

Then it shouldn't be hard to post a link to the Church of AGW where this belief is stated plainly. I can't find any scientist who claims CO2 drives the Climate. Not one. Everyone says it's the sun that drives planet earths climate. But people of faith do believe in some pretty weird and crazy shit in the name of their supernatural being(s) so.........

The whole premise of AGW is that CO2 drives climate.

No it isn't. If you can't even get that much right, how can you be expected to be taken seriously?

 

[Freemason9]

And the AGW church keeps on with it's propaganda.

WTF??

Do you ever work with facts? Sheesh.

Facts? WOW! When you post one it will be monumental.

Here are some facts for you:

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

•CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
•The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
•"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
•Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
•96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
•Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
•Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
•Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
•The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
•Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
•Climate models have no predictive value
•Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

Where did you come up with this bullshit? Hang in echo chambers much?

This was maybe the best one from that list:

"Climate models have no predictive value"

Well, shit. No sense in applying science, then!

LOL

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL. I can point to plenty of scientific research and data that supports the existence of man made global warming. You can't post an ounce of shit that supports anything you "believe".

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

CO2 as a gas is a greenhouse gas. That has been proven with certainty. Greenhouse gasses absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths. That has been proven with certainty. Empirically, then, one could conclude that an increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere corresponds with an increase in infrared absorbtion.

Tell me to stop if I've lost you yet . . .

An increase in the amount of absorbed IR radiation results in an increase in the mean temperature OVER THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

Get it, yet? If not, I recommend that you steer clear of science.

The Top Ten Greenhouse Gases | Popular Science

Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Of course anyone can post AGW propaganda.

However I challenge you to post datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

CO2 as a gas is a greenhouse gas. That has been proven with certainty. Greenhouse gasses absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths. That has been proven with certainty. Empirically, then, one could conclude that an increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere corresponds with an increase in infrared absorbtion.

Tell me to stop if I've lost you yet . . .

An increase in the amount of absorbed IR radiation results in an increase in the mean temperature OVER THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

Get it, yet? If not, I recommend that you steer clear of science.

And the AGW church keeps on with it's propaganda.

Indeed, this global warming thing has become "religion" to these nut bags. The word "cyclical" never enters the conversation. Quite the contrary, their "savior" Al Gore jets around the globe on his private jetliner, making tens of millions each year, spreading his BS, and these freaks eat it up as gospel.

There are as many scientists telling us that this is nonsense as there are disciples of "AlGore".

one day (probably 20 million years from now) the earth will cease to exist. Just like everything else, there is an Alpha and an Omega. But it WILL not happen in the next 100 years.

 

[Kosh]

WTF??

Do you ever work with facts? Sheesh.

Facts? WOW! When you post one it will be monumental.

Here are some facts for you:

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

•CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
•The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
•"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
•Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
•96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
•Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
•Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
•Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
•The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
•Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
•Climate models have no predictive value
•Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

Where did you come up with this bullshit? Hang in echo chambers much?

This was maybe the best one from that list:

"Climate models have no predictive value"

Well, shit. No sense in applying science, then!

LOL

Once again the AGW propaganda trumps facts.