Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[mamooth]

They're called "deniers" for a good reason.

I think China signing on to emissions reductions broke their sanity and caused them to drop their last pretense at being honest. The US and China were the big holdouts, and suddenly both moved to the light side. The other holdouts were just waiting on the US and China, so they'll join in quickly. The deniers are seeing their whole world collapsing.

 

[SSDD]

For those readers new to this discussion, please review the Two Theories thread - post by GT in particular - for discussion of a simple experiment to demonstrate greenhouse warming of CO2 at levels similar to those in our present day atmosphere.

Or go read any text book or reference on the greenhouse effect.

Those experiments don't show what you claim. The do demonstrate how easily you have been fooled by county fair trickery.

then think back on the claims of SSDD, jc456, CrusaderFrank and all the others that discussed those experiments and now claim they never saw such things. Try to imagine the level of honesty such behavior requires.

Of course we discussed them. We told you what they were demonstrating. You denied the actual science in favor of what you chose to believe. On top of that, none of them even came close to demonstrating your theory that a 100ppm increase in CO2 could do anything at all. It was also pointed out to you that most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when, according to your side, CO2 was safe. What small remainder of the warming that happened after 1940 happened during the much larger increase in CO2 and over the past 2 decades CO2 has increased steadily while warming has flatlined. Your hypothesis is a failure and you continue to deny it.

 

[SSDD]

They're called "deniers" for a good reason.

I suppose anything that would allow you to attempt to disparage those who can't see the emperors clothing while never having to provide a sample of the material would be a good reason for you. In real science, you provide proof to support your claims...in religion, you attack the heretics rather than provide proof to support your beliefs.

 

[Crick]

In denierism you make non-stop accusations, pretending all along that they have some basis in reality, in the hopes that in the flood of venom no one will notice the complete and utter absence of evidence, logic or reason.