Geologists On Global Climate Change

[orogenicman]

blah.. blah..) Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement ( blah..blah..

I'm not impressed by appeal to authority or bandwagon logical fallacies because I can think for myself.

Is it an appeal to authority when the world's scientists agree on the gravitational constant?

No, an appeal to authority is only used when you are arguing opinion. The gravitational constant....is. Just like the speed of light is a known quantity. Those are called facts. Let me know when the AGW crowd starts dealing in facts.

30 billion+ tons of ghgs emitted into the atmosphere by humans each year is also a known quantity.

 

[westwall]

That is a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.

Not at all. The world's scientists also by and large agree that global warming is occurring and has a significant human component. So is that an appeal to authority or a recognition of the validity of climate science?

dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this. We've pointed that out before. There is no known proof of what humans actually do. you can't provide that proof either. Talking like you have it is lying.

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

 

[orogenicman]

Not at all. The world's scientists also by and large agree that global warming is occurring and has a significant human component. So is that an appeal to authority or a recognition of the validity of climate science?

dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this. We've pointed that out before. There is no known proof of what humans actually do. you can't provide that proof either. Talking like you have it is lying.

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

 

[Muhammed]

That is a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.

Not at all. The world's scientists also by and large agree that global warming is occurring and has a significant human component. So is that an appeal to authority or a recognition of the validity of climate science?

dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this. We've pointed that out before. There is no known proof of what humans actually do. you can't provide that proof either. Talking like you have it is lying.

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

That's another fallacious false analogy. Are you capable of presenting an argument regarding your adamant ideological position concerning the controversial subject without resorting to various logical fallacies?

If you cannot, maybe you should consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

Not at all. The world's scientists also by and large agree that global warming is occurring and has a significant human component. So is that an appeal to authority or a recognition of the validity of climate science?

dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this. We've pointed that out before. There is no known proof of what humans actually do. you can't provide that proof either. Talking like you have it is lying.

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

That's another fallacious false analogy. Are you capable of presenting an argument regarding your adamant ideological position concerning the controversial subject without resorting to various logical fallacies?

If you cannot, maybe you should consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

Well, it is certain that you can do nothing more than post statements in denial of the facts. Certainly you cannot refute any of the science. So I won't try to bring the proverbial mountain to you, Muhammed, since you deny the mountain even exists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

blah.. blah..) Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement ( blah..blah..

I'm not impressed by appeal to authority or bandwagon logical fallacies because I can think for myself.

Is it an appeal to authority when the world's scientists agree on the gravitational constant?

No, an appeal to authority is only used when you are arguing opinion. The gravitational constant....is. Just like the speed of light is a known quantity. Those are called facts. Let me know when the AGW crowd starts dealing in facts.

30 billion+ tons of ghgs emitted into the atmosphere by humans each year is also a known quantity.

Is that supposed to be a big number?

 

[westwall]

dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this. We've pointed that out before. There is no known proof of what humans actually do. you can't provide that proof either. Talking like you have it is lying.

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

 

[westwall]

blah.. blah..) Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement ( blah..blah..

I'm not impressed by appeal to authority or bandwagon logical fallacies because I can think for myself.

Is it an appeal to authority when the world's scientists agree on the gravitational constant?

No, an appeal to authority is only used when you are arguing opinion. The gravitational constant....is. Just like the speed of light is a known quantity. Those are called facts. Let me know when the AGW crowd starts dealing in facts.

30 billion+ tons of ghgs emitted into the atmosphere by humans each year is also a known quantity.

Is that supposed to be a big number?

To people with no knowledge of science it is...

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, the whole of the geological and physics community says otherwise. Why should we believe an anonymous poster on a message board over real scientists. And Orogenicman has presented his credentials as a published scientist, you have not.

 

[Dot Com]

Walleyes, the whole of the geological and physics community says otherwise. Why should we believe an anonymous poster on a message board over real scientists. And Orogenicman has presented his credentials as a published scientist, you have not.

True. Any geologist, worth their weight in salt, would stop w/ the rose-colored glasses routine.

 

[orogenicman]

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

 

[westwall]

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

 

[orogenicman]

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

You first, professor. Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is. Or are you too cowardly?

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes, demonstrate that one gram of potasium cyanide cannot possibly affect you because it is such a vanishing small amount of material compared to your body weight.

 

[westwall]

30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. Get a grip silly boy. It's much ado about nothing.

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

You first, professor. Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is. Or are you too cowardly?

I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim, that means it is up to you to support that claim.

That's how science works. Which, were you a first year geologist would KNOW. I don't have to prove anything. I get the privilege of shooting holes through your presentation. That's the very nature of the scientific method.

And why is that? Because, as any thinking person knows, it is far easier to show something is wrong than to show it is correct. That's why the null hypothesis was developed. And color us unsurprised that the world of climatology tries to reverse centuries of development and stand the scientific method on its head trying like hell to baffle people with BS.

 

[orogenicman]

If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point. The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over. And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere. So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. You know this is true. Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

You first, professor. Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is. Or are you too cowardly?

I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim, that means it is up to you to support that claim.

But you did make the claim. And I quote:

"Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all."

Your words, verbatum. I challenge you to support that claim with peer reviewed work. Otherwise, you should toss your degree because it is worthless.

 

[westwall]

How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all. The dominant GHG is water vapor. Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit. The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon. There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

You first, professor. Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is. Or are you too cowardly?

I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim, that means it is up to you to support that claim.

But you did make the claim. And I quote:

"Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all."

Your words, verbatum. I challenge you to support that claim with peer reviewed work. Otherwise, you should toss your degree because it is worthless.

Yes, my words. Which counter YOUR words which claim that vanishingly small amounts of CO2 control the global temperature and even a slight rise in CO2 will cause an "inexorable" rise in global temperature.

Over to you buckwheat.

 

[orogenicman]

No power at all? Really? So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun). Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

You first, professor. Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is. Or are you too cowardly?

I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim, that means it is up to you to support that claim.

But you did make the claim. And I quote:

"Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all."

Your words, verbatum. I challenge you to support that claim with peer reviewed work. Otherwise, you should toss your degree because it is worthless.

Yes, my words. Which counter YOUR words which claim that vanishingly small amounts of CO2 control the global temperature and even a slight rise in CO2 will cause an "inexorable" rise in global temperature.

Over to you buckwheat.

So I will simply conclude here that you have no evidence to support your claim, and are nothing but a troll spouting ad hominem and straw man arguments, like all the other deniers. Congratulations.

 

[westwall]

Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys. It's your theory, you have to show us. And computer models don't count.

You first, professor. Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right. And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is. Or are you too cowardly?

I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim, that means it is up to you to support that claim.

But you did make the claim. And I quote:

"Yes, CO2 is a GHG. There's no doubt of that. However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all."

Your words, verbatum. I challenge you to support that claim with peer reviewed work. Otherwise, you should toss your degree because it is worthless.

Yes, my words. Which counter YOUR words which claim that vanishingly small amounts of CO2 control the global temperature and even a slight rise in CO2 will cause an "inexorable" rise in global temperature.

Over to you buckwheat.

So I will simply conclude here that you have no evidence to support your claim, and are nothing but a troll spouting ad hominem and straw man arguments, like all the other deniers. Congratulations.

Once again I refer you to the scientific method. You made the claim. I countered it. Learn how the system works or take your balls and go home. I don't have time to waste on children.

 

[Muhammed]

dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this. We've pointed that out before. There is no known proof of what humans actually do. you can't provide that proof either. Talking like you have it is lying.

No known proof of what humans actually do? I drive. I can prove that I drive by filming me driving. I can invite you over and let you watch me drive. I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive. No known proof of what humans actually do? Are you daft?

that's ok I don't need to see you driving. I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate. It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.

Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...

That's another fallacious false analogy. Are you capable of presenting an argument regarding your adamant ideological position concerning the controversial subject without resorting to various logical fallacies?

If you cannot, maybe you should consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

Well, it is certain that you can do nothing more than post statements in denial of the facts. Certainly you cannot refute any of the science. So I won't try to bring the proverbial mountain to you, Muhammed, since you deny the mountain even exists.

Your concession is respectfully accepted.