Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.

At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.

just a question?

Who is paying you to post?

Big wind? Big solar? Big ethanol?

Just asking you this because I am a normal 50 year old guy and my aviator is real with me and my blue pit biscuit


So what's your stake to defend?

The AGWCult is mostly paid by either David Rothschild or Soros through his Media Matters front organization. I think Crick once admitted he was a paid poster

 

[Old Rocks]

Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.

At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.

just a question?

Who is paying you to post?

Big wind? Big solar? Big ethanol?

Just asking you this because I am a normal 50 year old guy and my aviator is real with me and my blue pit biscuit


So what's your stake to defend?

The AGWCult is mostly paid by either David Rothschild or Soros through his Media Matters front organization. I think Crick once admitted he was a paid poster

Proof?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.

At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.

just a question?

Who is paying you to post?

Big wind? Big solar? Big ethanol?

Just asking you this because I am a normal 50 year old guy and my aviator is real with me and my blue pit biscuit


So what's your stake to defend?

The AGWCult is mostly paid by either David Rothschild or Soros through his Media Matters front organization. I think Crick once admitted he was a paid poster

Proof?

So you are a paid poster

 

[Dot Com]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

 

[jc456]

Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.

At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.

just a question?

Who is paying you to post?

Big wind? Big solar? Big ethanol?

Just asking you this because I am a normal 50 year old guy and my aviator is real with me and my blue pit biscuit


So what's your stake to defend?

The AGWCult is mostly paid by either David Rothschild or Soros through his Media Matters front organization. I think Crick once admitted he was a paid poster

Yes he did.

 

[Davey T]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

 

[Dot Com]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

 

[Davey T]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

 

[Dot Com]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

Remember when Bush eliminated all banking regulations?

Yeah, me neither

 

[Davey T]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

You obviously do not understand what happened with the 2008 collapse. And, one would think we are getting far afield from the global warming debate but this is really at its core. That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism. This is at its heart since all of its proposed solutions are anti-capitalistic and most of its proponents are anti capitalists, as you are proving. Therefore, the many of the socialists, with nowhere to go after the collapse of the Soviet Union, went to environmental movements. As they say, they old red is the new green. Now, the 2008 collapse.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act which forced (yes, forced) banks to lend mortgages to primarily minority and primarily poor risk investors. If they didn't, they were labeled racist. This was started under Carter and expanded under Clifton. It got to the point that the only way to effect lending was to eliminate down payments, altogether. (please google Barnie Frank and Fannie Mae where Bush tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Frank said it would be racist to do so) That is when people all over the country were buying homes that they couldn't afford. It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

 

[mamooth]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

 

[Dot Com]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

Remember when Bush eliminated all banking regulations?

Yeah, me neither

its called letting his executive agencies, such as Labor, HUD, EPA, SEC, etc..., be "permanently out to lunch.

 

[Dot Com]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand

 

[Billy_Bob]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand

Fannie and Freddie along with every son of a ***** that created that bubble (Clinton and Democrats) should be in jail.

As for you anti-science left wing fools... I'm sure your new religious leader in the Catholic church will help you with your religion..

 

[Crick]

Oi-vey...

 

[Davey T]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand

It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics. Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming? Maybe, maybe not. For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static. That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Is it greenhouse gases? Who knows. Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work. Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover? Ocean currents? Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2? Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others. And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

If CO2, is it man made? Show me the experiments. And your still calling people deniers. Not too scientific. In fact, rather political.

 

[Crick]

It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics. Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming? Maybe, maybe not.

There is no question about it. For the last 150 years, the world has been getting warmer. No one doubts that, even on your side of the argument.

For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static.

Human civilization hasn't been around for 4.5 billion years. We've been around for about 12,000. During that period, temperatures HAVE been quite stable. Civilization developed under those conditions. We have built an enormous infrastructure under those conditions. Now those conditions are changing and at an unnaturally rapid rate.

That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Meaningless nonsense. A minority of experts were concerned about possible cooling in the 1970s. They were never a majority and the majority of the experts even then were concerned about warming from human GHG emissions. Reviews of the literature showing precisely that have been posted here repeatedly. Global warming and climate change are different terms with different meanings. If that's what you've got as an argument, you've got nothing.

Is it greenhouse gases? Who knows. Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work.

Is what a greenhouse gas? CO2? That's been accepted science for well over a century and their were no computer models a century ago. The GCMs of today work far better than the misinformation you've apparently received and if you think assumptions of anthropogenic greenhouse warming make them inaccurate, try to remember that NO ONE has produced a functioning GCM that stays within miles of reality WITHOUT assuming anthropogenic global warming. No one.

Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover? Ocean currents? Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

Show me another Earth to use as a control.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2? Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others. And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

Why do you cling bitterly to such nonsense? The greenhouse warming from all the other constituents of the atmosphere have been heavily studied for over a century. For starters, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases, as has been amply demonstrated in numerous laboratory experiments. Water, of course, is one. The greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and the chlorofluorocarbon group. They exhibit the defining property of greenhouse gases: they absorb infrared radiation within the frequency band radiated by the Earth - a property easily tested in the lab. Despite what may seem the small proportion that CO2 makes up in the Earth's atmosphere, it has been well demonstrated to be capable of doing precisely that with which it is credited. The human emission of methane has also had a warming effect, though methane does not have the lifetime of CO2. Water vapor levels are controlled almost entirely by temperatures, so as the Earth's temperature rises, water vapor will enhance the warming effect our CO2 emissions produce. Water vapor has an atmospheric lifetime measured in single digits of days while CO2 will last 30-95 years. There is also the point that the final release of IR radiation to space takes place in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere, an area almost devoid of water vapor.

THAT is why scientists "cling bitterly" to CO2 as the primary causation of the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

If CO2, is it man made?

Yes.

Show me the experiments.

isotopic analysis of carbon dioxide - Google Scholar

Enjoy yourself

And your still calling people deniers. Not too scientific. In fact, rather political.

It isn't the least bit political. You claimed that your observations showed we had nothing but political motivations for a belief in mainstream climate science, yet you showed not a single iota of evidence supporting that charge. What you did show was a abysmal weakness in science and a small collection of out-of-date denier memes.

I call people "deniers" when they deny an argument without valid cause. Mountains of evidence and the opinions of the vast majority of the experts tell us that the primary cause of the warming we've experience over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. If you deny that, I would call you a denier. Simple enough. And no politics involved.

 

[IanC]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand

It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics. Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming? Maybe, maybe not. For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static. That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Is it greenhouse gases? Who knows. Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work. Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover? Ocean currents? Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2? Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others. And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

If CO2, is it man made? Show me the experiments. And your still calling people deniers. Not too scientific. In fact, rather political.

the newcomer has the obvious quality of common sense.

 

[IanC]

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

reminds me of my fave denier comic

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

You obviously do not understand what happened with the 2008 collapse. And, one would think we are getting far afield from the global warming debate but this is really at its core. That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism. This is at its heart since all of its proposed solutions are anti-capitalistic and most of its proponents are anti capitalists, as you are proving. Therefore, the many of the socialists, with nowhere to go after the collapse of the Soviet Union, went to environmental movements. As they say, they old red is the new green. Now, the 2008 collapse.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act which forced (yes, forced) banks to lend mortgages to primarily minority and primarily poor risk investors. If they didn't, they were labeled racist. This was started under Carter and expanded under Clifton. It got to the point that the only way to effect lending was to eliminate down payments, altogether. (please google Barnie Frank and Fannie Mae where Bush tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Frank said it would be racist to do so) That is when people all over the country were buying homes that they couldn't afford. It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

the US govt, and that includes Bush not just Clinton, caused the 2008 meltdown that cost us all a lot of money (and Im not even American). conforming to political correctness at the expense of ignoring reality never works out well.