97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Chris]

CO2 increased by 40% and rising.

The effect of CO2 is getting stronger every day.

Chris, you and rockhead are morons. You don't get it at all. You still go to those biased sites, and regurgitate the same old message. it's old, it's flawed. But, knock yourself out...you are a moron.

No, you don't get it.

The data from Mauna Loa is not biased.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 increased by 40% and rising.

The effect of CO2 is getting stronger every day.

Chris, you and rockhead are morons. You don't get it at all. You still go to those biased sites, and regurgitate the same old message. it's old, it's flawed. But, knock yourself out...you are a moron.

OK, you keep flapping your yap. Show us some real articles where scientists are stating that the data is flawed. And then show us why other people in other sites are getting the same data.

 

[del]

CO2 increased by 40% and rising.

The effect of CO2 is getting stronger every day.

Chris, you and rockhead are morons. You don't get it at all. You still go to those biased sites, and regurgitate the same old message. it's old, it's flawed. But, knock yourself out...you are a moron.

OK, you keep flapping your yap. Show us some real articles where scientists are stating that the data is flawed. And then show us why other people in other sites are getting the same data.

gee, what could possibly cause them all to get the same data?

 

[Old Rocks]

Chris, you and rockhead are morons. You don't get it at all. You still go to those biased sites, and regurgitate the same old message. it's old, it's flawed. But, knock yourself out...you are a moron.

OK, you keep flapping your yap. Show us some real articles where scientists are stating that the data is flawed. And then show us why other people in other sites are getting the same data.

gee, what could possibly cause them all to get the same data?

The fact that the atmosphere is well mixed? Or is that complicated of a concept for you?

 

[del]

OK, you keep flapping your yap. Show us some real articles where scientists are stating that the data is flawed. And then show us why other people in other sites are getting the same data.

gee, what could possibly cause them all to get the same data?

The fact that the atmosphere is well mixed? Or is that complicated of a concept for you?

yeah, i'm baffled.

 

[Modbert]

Really all? I just took a look at how long this has been going on for.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really all? I just took a look at how long this has been going on for.

View attachment 6884

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...

 

[Chris]

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

 

[del]

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

priceless

 

[Chris]

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

priceless

I am still waiting for the first del post that is not an insult.

When will that occur?

 

[del]

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

priceless

I am still waiting for the first del post that is not an insult.

When will that occur?

immediately after the first non-asinine kirky post and possibly not even then.
fortunately, the odds of you posting something intelligent are right up there with me getting struck by a meteor.

i don't suffer fools gladly, but i'm more than willing to insult them, fool.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

So you admit that those are the only few facts you have ... no actual connections, no biological science, not even any nuclear science data ... hmm ... of course it's not enough. Without other sciences it can be interpreted to mean anything. Like: It's the second coming of some christ ... the heat is from his halo!

 

[Chris]

priceless

I am still waiting for the first del post that is not an insult.

When will that occur?

immediately after the first non-asinine kirky post and possibly not even then.
fortunately, the odds of you posting something intelligent are right up there with me getting struck by a meteor.

i don't suffer fools gladly, but i'm more than willing to insult them, fool.

I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.

 

[Chris]

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

So you admit that those are the only few facts you have ... no actual connections, no biological science, not even any nuclear science data ... hmm ... of course it's not enough. Without other sciences it can be interpreted to mean anything. Like: It's the second coming of some christ ... the heat is from his halo!

There is over 100 years of science.

Do you only read right wing blogs?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Global Warming -- Research Issues

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

 

[KittenKoder]

The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.

So you admit that those are the only few facts you have ... no actual connections, no biological science, not even any nuclear science data ... hmm ... of course it's not enough. Without other sciences it can be interpreted to mean anything. Like: It's the second coming of some christ ... the heat is from his halo!

There is over 100 years of science.

Do you only read right wing blogs?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Global Warming -- Research Issues

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

No, but I don't read left wing one either ...

 

[del]

I am still waiting for the first del post that is not an insult.

When will that occur?

immediately after the first non-asinine kirky post and possibly not even then.
fortunately, the odds of you posting something intelligent are right up there with me getting struck by a meteor.

i don't suffer fools gladly, but i'm more than willing to insult them, fool.

I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

 

[KittenKoder]

immediately after the first non-asinine kirky post and possibly not even then.
fortunately, the odds of you posting something intelligent are right up there with me getting struck by a meteor.

i don't suffer fools gladly, but i'm more than willing to insult them, fool.

I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

Sorry Del (well not really sorry because it's just who you are) but this is one (probably the only) time Chris is correct. Worse is that you don't really contribute to the discussions, perhaps you have just grown tired of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's all you have done lately.

 

[del]

I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

Sorry Del (well not really sorry because it's just who you are) but this is one (probably the only) time Chris is correct. Worse is that you don't really contribute to the discussions, perhaps you have just grown tired of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's all you have done lately.

get in touch with chris and bring a hanky.

 

[KittenKoder]

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

Sorry Del (well not really sorry because it's just who you are) but this is one (probably the only) time Chris is correct. Worse is that you don't really contribute to the discussions, perhaps you have just grown tired of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's all you have done lately.

get in touch with chris and bring a hanky.

So, do you support the topic of the thread like Chris or agree with me and say it's all a bunch of hogwosh?