2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...

[francoHFW]

Duh.

If you overlay the graphs you'll not that the temperature increased BEFORE the CO2 increased.

Duh!

Shhhhh! The climatologists can't seem to explain that, but any high school chemistry student knows that if you increase the temperature of water, it can hold less dissolved gases, like say, oh, I don't know! How about CO2?

Actually, they happened at the same time, of course. Ay caramba...

 

[Wyld Kard]

What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.

What "evidence"? Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.

That so-called "evidence"?

 

[bripat9643]

Today's Climate Change Is Different!

Today's climate change is different from past climate change in several important ways:

1. Natural causes are not responsible.None of the natural causes of climate change, including variations in the sun's energy and the Earth's orbit, can fully explain the climate changes we are seeing today. Learn more about how we know this.
2. People's activities are the main cause. By burning lots of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, people are overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and adding to the greenhouse effect. People are also adding other heat–trapping greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, to the atmosphere.
3. Greenhouse gases are at record levels in the atmosphere. For hundreds of thousands of years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stayed between 200 and 300 parts per million. Today, it's up to nearly 400 parts per million, and the amount is still rising. Along with other greenhouse gases, this extra carbon dioxide is trapping heat and causing the climate to change.

​

All your claims are lies.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Duh.

If you overlay the graphs you'll not that the temperature increased BEFORE the CO2 increased.

Duh!

Shhhhh! The climatologists can't seem to explain that, but any high school chemistry student knows that if you increase the temperature of water, it can hold less dissolved gases, like say, oh, I don't know! How about CO2?

Actually, they happened at the same time, of course. Ay caramba...

You can't read your own charts that say temps went up BEFORE CO2 went up?

Maybe a good eye exam is needed.

 

[bripat9643]

Duh.

If you overlay the graphs you'll not that the temperature increased BEFORE the CO2 increased.

Duh!

Shhhhh! The climatologists can't seem to explain that, but any high school chemistry student knows that if you increase the temperature of water, it can hold less dissolved gases, like say, oh, I don't know! How about CO2?

Actually, they happened at the same time, of course. Ay caramba...

The atmospheric CO2 has been shown to lag the temperature in the past warming cycles, as shown in the following figure (From http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml).

The IPCC AR4 Scientific Basis report, Part 6 (May 2007), makes the following statements:

• “Variations in CO2 over the last 420 kyr broadly followed Antarctic temperature, typically by several centuries to a millennium”

• “The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research.”

Many scientific studies have shown that CO2 increase follows temperature increase in the pre-historical records. A few examples:

• “Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations” – Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastroianni, Dec, Science 12, 1999 [Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations | Science]: “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

• “Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming” – Stott, Timmerman, Thunel, Science 2007 [Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming | Science]: “Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing.”

• “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” – Caillon, Severinghaus, Jouzel, Barnola, Kang, Lipenkov, Science 14, 2003 [Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III | Science]: “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years”

• “Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene” – Siegenthaler et al, Science 25, 2005 [Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene | Science]: “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively”

• “Carbon Dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core”, Idso, Atmospheric Environment, 2003 [ScienceDirect.com | Science, health and medical journals, full text articles and books.]: “variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration have not played a significant role in the waxing and waning of past ice ages, and that the Vostok data, therefore, do not provide support for the magnitude of CO2 greenhouse warming predicted by current theory.”

 

[Obiwan]

Duh.

If you overlay the graphs you'll not that the temperature increased BEFORE the CO2 increased.

Duh!

Shhhhh! The climatologists can't seem to explain that, but any high school chemistry student knows that if you increase the temperature of water, it can hold less dissolved gases, like say, oh, I don't know! How about CO2?

Actually, they happened at the same time, of course. Ay caramba...

You can't read your own charts that say temps went up BEFORE CO2 went up?

Maybe a good eye exam is needed.

Or a brain transplant...

 

[bripat9643]

Duh.

If you overlay the graphs you'll not that the temperature increased BEFORE the CO2 increased.

Duh!

Shhhhh! The climatologists can't seem to explain that, but any high school chemistry student knows that if you increase the temperature of water, it can hold less dissolved gases, like say, oh, I don't know! How about CO2?

Actually, they happened at the same time, of course. Ay caramba...

You can't read your own charts that say temps went up BEFORE CO2 went up?

Maybe a good eye exam is needed.

Or a brain transplant...

View attachment 60491

That video is hilarious!

 

[RUNVS]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

 

[RUNVS]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

 

[RUNVS]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

Guessing being the keyword, run along now and after you get your feet wet maybe we'll talk. Bye now

 

[bripat9643]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

How does that prove that CO2 increased before the temperature increased?

 

[RUNVS]

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

Guessing being the keyword, run along now and after you get your feet wet maybe we'll talk. Bye now

Speaking about getting feet wet

What would the world look like if all the ice MELTED?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

Guessing being the keyword, run along now and after you get your feet wet maybe we'll talk. Bye now

Speaking about getting feet wet

What would the world look like if all the ice MELTED?

The ice didn't melt, it's like Al Snore's bullshit NYC would be underwater by now. Idiots

 

[bripat9643]

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

I'm reasonably comfortable guessing that you're a gullible tool who believes whatever the party tells you to believe.

The evidence that lead is harmful is irrefutable. On the other hand, the evidence that man is causing the planet to warm is utterly dubious.

 

[bripat9643]

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

Guessing being the keyword, run along now and after you get your feet wet maybe we'll talk. Bye now

Speaking about getting feet wet

What would the world look like if all the ice MELTED?

That would require Antarctica to melt. Not even algore is stupid enough to believe that.

 

[RUNVS]

Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.

Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham

Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.

Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob

I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.

I'm reasonably comfortable guessing that you're a gullible tool who believes whatever the party tells you to believe.

The evidence that lead is harmful is irrefutable. On the other hand, the evidence that man is causing the planet to warm is utterly dubious.

Except the lead industry had their own "scientists" who attempted to refute what the real scientists were saying. The lead industry muddied the waters for years, swaying public opinion with phoney science, exactly what the energy companies are doing today with their phoney scientists who are attempting to distort public opinion. It is in the energy companies financial interest to do so.

 

[HappyJoy]

Climate change denialists are no different than birthers and truthers. An entire mythology has been created around their conspiracies.