An example of why the people no longer believe your crap

[westwall]

You're fixated on temps. I don't care if they've haven't changed at all. If the gases keep rising, warming is inevitable and no amount gobble-de-gook designed to confuse the science challenged is going to repeal the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

Quoting the Borg isn't going to change the fact that climate operates independently of what man can do. The temps have been higher in the past without mans help. That is a fact though the cultists attempt to wipe away that history to further a POLITICAL goal.

That in my eyes is criminal.

 

[code1211]

“free of ideology”???? Yeah, the deniers are "free of ideology". What a laugh. It's also not just CO2. What of the other gases? While CO2 is on the forefront, there are others including some not found in nature, that are even more potent than CO2. They're parroting a line designed to fool the uninitiated in order to further an agenda. To say that the CO2 concentration effect is somehow maxed out, doesn't pass the smell test, IMO. They're fighting hard to equate a percieved lack of openess with bad science. They have to make it a political issue because 99% of the deniers' scientific objections turn out to be total nonsense.

Now I realize that every bit of evidence is on your side and that it is impossible that there was ever any warming that occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution. All of that notwithstanding, how can it be that the warming over the last 2000 years, less than about 1 degree, occurred with about 60% in the first 1000 years and about 40% in the most recent 1000 years?

Also, How is it that we are cooler today than we were, again by about a degree, 8000 years ago?

I hate to keep quoting Einstein because he was obviously out of step with real scientists, but he said something along the lines of no matter how beautiful the theory, eventually the results must be examined.

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[konradv]

“free of ideology”???? Yeah, the deniers are "free of ideology". What a laugh. It's also not just CO2. What of the other gases? While CO2 is on the forefront, there are others including some not found in nature, that are even more potent than CO2. They're parroting a line designed to fool the uninitiated in order to further an agenda. To say that the CO2 concentration effect is somehow maxed out, doesn't pass the smell test, IMO. They're fighting hard to equate a percieved lack of openess with bad science. They have to make it a political issue because 99% of the deniers' scientific objections turn out to be total nonsense.

Now I realize that every bit of evidence is on your side and that it is impossible that there was ever any warming that occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution. All of that notwithstanding, how can it be that the warming over the last 2000 years, less than about 1 degree, occurred with about 60% in the first 1000 years and about 40% in the most recent 1000 years?

Also, How is it that we are cooler today than we were, again by about a degree, 8000 years ago?

I hate to keep quoting Einstein because he was obviously out of step with real scientists, but he said something along the lines of no matter how beautiful the theory, eventually the results must be examined.

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

You're making the mistake of using the past as a template for the future when the underlying conditions have changed. Previous warming and cooling cycles were natural. This one has the added component of humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the vocanoes on earth do in a year. How can you expect anything but warming, if the trend continues? The deniers love to shot gun their objections, because they have no answer to the question. One day it'll be that these are merely "deminimus" increases in a very low concentration gas and the next they'll be talking about how CO2 is already saturated in its ability to absorb energy. If the levels are so low as to be discounted, how can you claim saturation?

 

[westwall]

“free of ideology”???? Yeah, the deniers are "free of ideology". What a laugh. It's also not just CO2. What of the other gases? While CO2 is on the forefront, there are others including some not found in nature, that are even more potent than CO2. They're parroting a line designed to fool the uninitiated in order to further an agenda. To say that the CO2 concentration effect is somehow maxed out, doesn't pass the smell test, IMO. They're fighting hard to equate a percieved lack of openess with bad science. They have to make it a political issue because 99% of the deniers' scientific objections turn out to be total nonsense.

The only group to have made this political is your side. They invest in a particular "green technology", then they lobby the various governments to pass legislation to make it mandatory that people buy their technology and they make a ton of money in the process.

This is the extreme negative side of "capatalism" because it truly isn't capatalism, it is a form of fascism.

 

[code1211]

“free of ideology”???? Yeah, the deniers are "free of ideology". What a laugh. It's also not just CO2. What of the other gases? While CO2 is on the forefront, there are others including some not found in nature, that are even more potent than CO2. They're parroting a line designed to fool the uninitiated in order to further an agenda. To say that the CO2 concentration effect is somehow maxed out, doesn't pass the smell test, IMO. They're fighting hard to equate a percieved lack of openess with bad science. They have to make it a political issue because 99% of the deniers' scientific objections turn out to be total nonsense.

Now I realize that every bit of evidence is on your side and that it is impossible that there was ever any warming that occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution. All of that notwithstanding, how can it be that the warming over the last 2000 years, less than about 1 degree, occurred with about 60% in the first 1000 years and about 40% in the most recent 1000 years?

Also, How is it that we are cooler today than we were, again by about a degree, 8000 years ago?

I hate to keep quoting Einstein because he was obviously out of step with real scientists, but he said something along the lines of no matter how beautiful the theory, eventually the results must be examined.

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

You're making the mistake of using the past as a template for the future when the underlying conditions have changed. Previous warming and cooling cycles were natural. This one has the added component of humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the vocanoes on earth do in a year. How can you expect anything but warming, if the trend continues? The deniers love to shot gun their objections, because they have no answer to the question. One day it'll be that these are merely "deminimus" increases in a very low concentration gas and the next they'll be talking about how CO2 is already saturated in its ability to absorb energy. If the levels are so low as to be discounted, how can you claim saturation?

The Grand Poohbah of Global Warming science, Dr. James Hansen, said pretty much what you have just said. He constructed scenarios and made predictions and presented the whole dire diatribe of doom to Congress and found that after 30 years, he was wrong.

Turns out that the warming we were looking forward to in his predictions never materialized. Go figure. He was so sure. Kind of like you.

Turns out the globe warmed more between the year 10 and the 1010 than it did beween the year 1011 and 2010. Go figure. CO2 must be poor student of AGW Theory.

I'm not saying that your science is wrong. I'm only saying that the results don't support a move to panic right now.

 

[westwall]

I'm saying it...the science is wrong. It as been proven wrong. It also violates a couple of Laws of Thermodynamics, so it is wrong on more than one count.