Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because you made a claim. It is forum policy that if you make a claim you back it up with links to support your perticular delusion...whatever that may be. i think you have lots of them!
Why did you doubt my claim?
Your argument is with daveman. Address your questions and delusions to him. I was telling you why he wants a link to this particular delusion of yours.
Why did you doubt my claim?
Your argument is with daveman. Address your questions and delusions to him. I was telling you why he wants a link to this particular delusion of yours.
Since you know what he thinks, why can't I just as you if he doubted my claim?
Your argument is with daveman. Address your questions and delusions to him. I was telling you why he wants a link to this particular delusion of yours.
Since you know what he thinks, why can't I just as you if he doubted my claim?
Because your delusions don't interest me.
LOLOLOLOL.....you anti-science denier cult morons are just too, too funny....
UK scientists see greenhouse evidence
BBC News
Friday, 16 March, 2001
(excerpts)
A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real. Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case. Earlier studies saying that global warming was happening have been based on computer models. The scientists say their new findings are unambiguous, and they are certain that the greenhouse effect is at work.
The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming. Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat.
But he [The team leader, Dr John Harries] is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.
Ummm, hate to tell ya but that study was found to not be accurate. Nice try though.
LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.Ummm, hate to tell ya but that study was found to not be accurate. Nice try though.LOLOLOLOL.....you anti-science denier cult morons are just too, too funny....
UK scientists see greenhouse evidence
BBC News
Friday, 16 March, 2001
(excerpts)
A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real. Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case. Earlier studies saying that global warming was happening have been based on computer models. The scientists say their new findings are unambiguous, and they are certain that the greenhouse effect is at work.
The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming. Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat.
But he [The team leader, Dr John Harries] is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.
LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.Ummm, hate to tell ya but that study was found to not be accurate. Nice try though.LOLOLOLOL.....you anti-science denier cult morons are just too, too funny....
UK scientists see greenhouse evidence
BBC News
Friday, 16 March, 2001
(excerpts)
A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real. Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case. Earlier studies saying that global warming was happening have been based on computer models. The scientists say their new findings are unambiguous, and they are certain that the greenhouse effect is at work.
The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming. Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat.
But he [The team leader, Dr John Harries] is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.
LOLOLOLOL....or perhaps the paper was "found to not be accurate" in your own little denier cult fantasy world, walleyed, but in the real world, it has been repeatedly verified
The results of the paper I cited, (Harries 2001), "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect", was confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra data that Harries used were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers basically confirmed Harries findings and found that the observed differences in CO2 bands matches the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Moreover these results are mirrored and complimented by studies of the surface measurements of downward longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere. One study, (Wang 2009), looking at the relevant data from the period from 1973 to 2008, found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth linked to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, air temperature, and humidity. Other regional studies also confirmed the results, such as Philipona 2004, which found an increase in downward longwave radiation over the central Alps due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. An analysis, (Evans 2006), of all of the high resolution spectral data that had been gathered, allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The results lead the authors of that paper to conclude that: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
But of course, in your own little deranged denier cult brain, you imagine that you're way smarter and more knowledgeable than all of those actual scientists who've been studying this for decades. LOLOLOLOLOL
Still keeping your head rammed firmly up your ass, I see. Gotta admit tho', it is a great way for you to blind and deafen yourself to reality and avoid having to look at the facts. Doesn't the smell bother your nose though?Still screaming I see. Doesn't that hurt your ears?LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.Ummm, hate to tell ya but that study was found to not be accurate. Nice try though.
LOLOLOLOL....or perhaps the paper was "found to not be accurate" in your own little denier cult fantasy world, walleyed, but in the real world, it has been repeatedly verified
The results of the paper I cited, (Harries 2001), "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect", was confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra data that Harries used were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers basically confirmed Harries findings and found that the observed differences in CO2 bands matches the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Moreover these results are mirrored and complimented by studies of the surface measurements of downward longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere. One study, (Wang 2009), looking at the relevant data from the period from 1973 to 2008, found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth linked to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, air temperature, and humidity. Other regional studies also confirmed the results, such as Philipona 2004, which found an increase in downward longwave radiation over the central Alps due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. An analysis, (Evans 2006), of all of the high resolution spectral data that had been gathered, allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The results lead the authors of that paper to conclude that: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
But of course, in your own little deranged denier cult brain, you imagine that you're way smarter and more knowledgeable than all of those actual scientists who've been studying this for decades. LOLOLOLOLOL
Still keeping your head rammed firmly up your ass, I see. Gotta admit tho', it is a great way for you to blind and deafen yourself to reality and avoid having to look at the facts. Doesn't the smell bother your nose though?Still screaming I see. Doesn't that hurt your ears?LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.
LOLOLOLOL....or perhaps the paper was "found to not be accurate" in your own little denier cult fantasy world, walleyed, but in the real world, it has been repeatedly verified
The results of the paper I cited, (Harries 2001), "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect", was confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra data that Harries used were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers basically confirmed Harries findings and found that the observed differences in CO2 bands matches the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Moreover these results are mirrored and complimented by studies of the surface measurements of downward longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere. One study, (Wang 2009), looking at the relevant data from the period from 1973 to 2008, found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth linked to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, air temperature, and humidity. Other regional studies also confirmed the results, such as Philipona 2004, which found an increase in downward longwave radiation over the central Alps due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. An analysis, (Evans 2006), of all of the high resolution spectral data that had been gathered, allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The results lead the authors of that paper to conclude that: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
But of course, in your own little deranged denier cult brain, you imagine that you're way smarter and more knowledgeable than all of those actual scientists who've been studying this for decades. LOLOLOLOLOL
I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.To see if you could provide them. Moron.Why did you ask for links?
Are you really that stupid, Big Font Boi?
Why? Were you not aware of that research? It would seem to me if you were aware of it, you wouldn't need links to it. If you weren't, that means you're talking about something you haven't done your homework on. Which is it?
I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.To see if you could provide them. Moron.
Are you really that stupid, Big Font Boi?
Why? Were you not aware of that research? It would seem to me if you were aware of it, you wouldn't need links to it. If you weren't, that means you're talking about something you haven't done your homework on. Which is it?
Nevertheless, my original point has not been disproved: Tyndall's experiment does not prove what is claimed it does.
You wanna give that a shot?
I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.Why? Were you not aware of that research? It would seem to me if you were aware of it, you wouldn't need links to it. If you weren't, that means you're talking about something you haven't done your homework on. Which is it?
Nevertheless, my original point has not been disproved: Tyndall's experiment does not prove what is claimed it does.
You wanna give that a shot?
How the fuck were you not aware of it? You claim the entirety of AGW is based on a single experiment in 1861, and you're unaware that experiment has been repeated dozens of times (in the literature) using differing techniques?
What is your point exactly? Who cares if Tyndall's experiment is faulty or not when the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well established by multiple groups since then?
I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.
Nevertheless, my original point has not been disproved: Tyndall's experiment does not prove what is claimed it does.
You wanna give that a shot?
How the fuck were you not aware of it? You claim the entirety of AGW is based on a single experiment in 1861, and you're unaware that experiment has been repeated dozens of times (in the literature) using differing techniques?
What is your point exactly? Who cares if Tyndall's experiment is faulty or not when the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well established by multiple groups since then?
It's certainly not helping your claims of intelligence or honesty any.
As I've told you, whenever I've asked for proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas, Roxy pointed to Tyndall's experiment. No others. When I read the paper myself, I found it proved no such thing.
Get it now, or are you going to keep being stupid and dishonest?
Of course you don't.I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.How the fuck were you not aware of it? You claim the entirety of AGW is based on a single experiment in 1861, and you're unaware that experiment has been repeated dozens of times (in the literature) using differing techniques?
What is your point exactly? Who cares if Tyndall's experiment is faulty or not when the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well established by multiple groups since then?
It's certainly not helping your claims of intelligence or honesty any.
As I've told you, whenever I've asked for proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas, Roxy pointed to Tyndall's experiment. No others. When I read the paper myself, I found it proved no such thing.
Get it now, or are you going to keep being stupid and dishonest?
Considering there has been ample evidence that CO IS a greenhouse gas since 1861 - no, I don't see your point.
You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
RT: Typically a day late and a dollar short.
You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
RT: Typically a day late and a dollar short.
No, it's what I say when you're all proud of yourself for presenting information that's already been presented.You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
RT: Typically a day late and a dollar short.
So that's what you say now when your ignorant bullshit is blown out of the water by scientific evidence? LOLOLOL
