"Get Away From Her You BITCH!"

[Crepitus]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

You're right. Humans are not causing it. There is no debate about it.

Comprehension not your strong suite, I guess?

It very much is. I am correcting you. Do you comprehend or no?

It obviously is not. You did not comprehend my post.

 

[Oldestyle]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

Global warming and cooling was going on LONG before humans started walking on two feet, Crepitus! It will be happening long after we're gone! Did you want to debate that?

 

[Crepitus]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

That is because warmist/alarmists lost the debate, now they try to shut them down....., heck my two teen daughters can see through the bullcrap easily. They live in a region that is already hotter than the annual mean of 59F.

Thankfully there is GW little textbook effect in their school.

It is cooler NOW than in 2016, that is a reality you need to grasp.

There is no debate. Just a few science denying loudmouths.

You lie over and over, here is a sample from 2014 showing that 6 years ago, there were many scientists who didn't support the AGW conjecture:

Popular Technology.net

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

February 12, 2014

LINK

=======

There have been a lot more since then.

Checking just a couple of those linked papers proves they don't say what you think they do.

Unless you can prove they do?

 

[Crepitus]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

Science in NOWHERE near "settled".. Textbooks should reflect that... The problems of modeling and PREDICTIONS are nowhere near accurate enough to panic the young on purpose..,.

Kinda like the daily failings of the Covid models in fact...

No. The science is clear. There is no more room for debate. Climate change is real, it's is caused by humans. Textbooks should reflect that without waffling just because it makes conservitard states uncomfortable.

 

[Crepitus]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

Anyone who truly believes in science knows it's never settled. It's the Pharisees who say there is no room for debate.

The evidence is overwhelming. This particular debate is over, unless new information comes to light.

And I'm not talking about reinterpreted sattillite data from paid shills for the oil companies.

 

[CWayne]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

You're right. Humans are not causing it. There is no debate about it.

Comprehension not your strong suite, I guess?

It very much is. I am correcting you. Do you comprehend or no?

It obviously is not. You did not comprehend my post.

I did. YOU are wrong in that you think that global warming is brought about by mankind and there is no debate that it is not. Have a nice day, I don't debate fantasies with people.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The reality is that the sun has gone quiet. We are just entering a solar minimum. That's what's giving us the arctic April. This is only the beginning. Democrat rejection of science will leave us woefully unprepared for the cold that is to come. We don't know yet how bad it will be. In some periods of minimum rivers have frozen solid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Since farmers have to deal with the climate every year for their entire lives, and if they say something about climate change, I believe them. But Republicans who live in the city? I don’t believe them about anything. At least the farmers have experience. City Republicans are like the dumbest people I’ve ever known.

Ha ha, what an empty claim you make, with a lot of partisanship bullcrap in its wake......

 

[Muhammed]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

That is because warmist/alarmists lost the debate, now they try to shut them down....., heck my two teen daughters can see through the bullcrap easily. They live in a region that is already hotter than the annual mean of 59F.

Thankfully there is GW little textbook effect in their school.

It is cooler NOW than in 2016, that is a reality you need to grasp.

There is no debate. Just a few science denying loudmouths.

No there are HUNDREDS of peer reviewed papers published every year that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

I have posted them before here in the forum.

No, there aren't.

How would you know?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

That is because warmist/alarmists lost the debate, now they try to shut them down....., heck my two teen daughters can see through the bullcrap easily. They live in a region that is already hotter than the annual mean of 59F.

Thankfully there is GW little textbook effect in their school.

It is cooler NOW than in 2016, that is a reality you need to grasp.

There is no debate. Just a few science denying loudmouths.

No there are HUNDREDS of peer reviewed papers published every year that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

I have posted them before here in the forum.

No, there aren't.

Already posted them before and again yesterday, stop lying little man!

Post 13 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Post 21 It couldn't be a settled situation when at least 100 new papers are published every year on the science.....

Post 24 Peer-Reviewed Study: Repeat Coral Bleaching Just Happens, No Humans or CO2 Needed

======

It couldn't be a settled situation when at least 100 new papers are published every year on the science.....

 

[Sunsettommy]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

That is because warmist/alarmists lost the debate, now they try to shut them down....., heck my two teen daughters can see through the bullcrap easily. They live in a region that is already hotter than the annual mean of 59F.

Thankfully there is GW little textbook effect in their school.

It is cooler NOW than in 2016, that is a reality you need to grasp.

There is no debate. Just a few science denying loudmouths.

You lie over and over, here is a sample from 2014 showing that 6 years ago, there were many scientists who didn't support the AGW conjecture:

Popular Technology.net

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

February 12, 2014

LINK

=======

There have been a lot more since then.

Checking just a couple of those linked papers proves they don't say what you think they do.

Unless you can prove they do?

Ha ha ha, you have been trained well to be this stupid.

Which two papers you allegedly read, or shall I just call you a bald faced liar!

You haven't proved anything, not when you don't back up your assertion.

 

[ReinyDays]

The evidence is overwhelming. This particular debate is over, unless new information comes to light.
And I'm not talking about reinterpreted sattillite data from paid shills for the oil companies.

No ... we have a theory is all ... demonstrating the theory is correct is much more difficult ...and takes much more time ... the IPCC's RCP4.5 scenario results doesn't back up any claims of "climate change" ... 2ºC incrementally over 100 years ... just drive an hour or two south to find this much change ... how is Peoria, Illinois' climate catastrophic if it should occur in Chicago? ... would anyone notice? ... or do we need expensive top-quality instruments to even measure this change? ...

You have models ... and these are just statistical constructs that can be teased into saying anything we want them to say ... that's the nature of statistics ... the debatable part is (at a minimum) the actual "climate sensitivity" factor (k) ... we're using k = 0.8 simply because any lower makes all the rhetoric meaningless ... but there's no evidence k does equal 0.8 ... that's strictly a guess ... unless you have information to the contrary ... thus my question earlier about the mathematical connection between CO2 concentration and greybody emissivity ... if you're guessing, then there's plenty of debate to be had ...

You understand oscillations ... and you understand how oscillations within oscillations behave ... we can only include in our models those oscillations we're aware of ... but quite obviously there are some oscillations that are unknown to science, and can't be included in our models ...

"Climate change" is a hoax, specifically it's New Speak for global warming ... as in Orwell's 1984, New Speak is designed to make the population afraid of something they don't have to be afraid of ... tell an Iowa farmer "climate change" and he'll think the rains will stop coming in Summer and he can't grow his crops, tell an Iowa farmer "global warming" and he'll think longer growing season ...

My challenge remains unanswered ... pick any point of the Earth's surface, tell me what the climate was 100 years ago, tell me what the climate is now and tell me what the climate will be in another 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ... where's your "overwhelming evidence" now? ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

Anyone who truly believes in science knows it's never settled. It's the Pharisees who say there is no room for debate.

The evidence is overwhelming. This particular debate is over, unless new information comes to light.

And I'm not talking about reinterpreted sattillite data from paid shills for the oil companies.

Your lies and stupidity are overwhelming, that is a fact!

You have been shown hard evidence that many new science papers are being published every year that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

Real science is never settled, but ignoramuses like YOU wouldn't know because you have no identifiable science literacy to realize what really going on around you, you are a brainwashed moron.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

Anyone who truly believes in science knows it's never settled. It's the Pharisees who say there is no room for debate.

The evidence is overwhelming. This particular debate is over, unless new information comes to light.

And I'm not talking about reinterpreted sattillite data from paid shills for the oil companies.

It's clearly not over, or there would be consensus across economic and political lines, which there is not or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Don't claim to be about science when you don't even accept the scientific method.

 

[Desperado]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

That is because warmist/alarmists lost the debate, now they try to shut them down....., heck my two teen daughters can see through the bullcrap easily. They live in a region that is already hotter than the annual mean of 59F.

Thankfully there is GW little textbook effect in their school.

It is cooler NOW than in 2016, that is a reality you need to grasp.

Now prove that is due to humans or if it is just part of a natural cycle.

 

[deanrd]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is plenty of debatd [sic]

libs are selling a lie

It's all they have to sell. It's all they've had for a long time.

 

[OldLady]

Well, scientists noticed that glaciers were melting and sea level rising (and yes, it is--ask the US military--they're on it because some of their installations are threatened). So they figured out there has been a rise in C02 in the atmosphere, based on ice core samples, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. Doesn't take a rocket scientist, folks. They believe it is changing weather patterns, will intensify hurricanes and tropical storms. Changing weather patterns is probably the one that will create the biggest headache. Fortunately, this happens gradually, but great numbers of people will be forced to migrate, and right now, we've had about enough of that.

At least the rest of the world is on it, doing what they can. Once again, making us look like a bunch of dumbass yokels. Well, maybe Saudi Arabia isn't on it either. They have too much money to make from fossil fuels. But so do we. Which is why Big Oil and Big Finance that relies on a healthy stock market has convinced so many people that it's not an issue.

 

[OldLady]

Any teacher who has taught science properly will have students who understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. And that theories are always subject to change. If the text doesn't explain some of the other studies that contradict the GW predictions, the teacher should at least inform students that there are questions, still, and summarize some of those arguments. Much of the global warming argument is predictions. We know those aren't set in stone, are educated guesses. Sometimes we get them wrong.

I've always thought we should be working on renewable energy sources, but GW may not be the horrible disaster they are predicting either. There will be ongoing changes, yes. Hopefully we'll do better for the planet by developing cleaner energy sources, but that rise in C02 levels is only partially caused by humans, so GW is inevitable whether we turn off the lights or not.

 

[flacaltenn]

Textbooks should be accurate and truthful.

This can only be true at the time the textbook is written ... science changes ... sometimes faster than a textbook and cirriculum can be developed and brought to the classroom ...

There is no real.debate about human caused global warming.

We've been looking for the mathematical expression that connects CO2 concentration to greybody emissivity ... if you've got it, please post, I'd love to go through the derivation ...

If this formula doesn't exist ... then your science is non-rigid ... and that leaves plenty of room for debate ...

Actually the best I've seen of this is in most every Atmospheric Physics text books.. Just assumes a thin layer of well mixed gas and the CO2 (sometimes plus other GH gas) concentration.. The geometry set-up is a flat surface above a sphere.. Then it uses the geometry and "grey" body emission for the integrated IR spectrum of CO2..

Simplistic for sure -- but it approximately predicts the "down radiation" from the Ghouse gases... BTW as a SOLE forcing. ONLY estimates the "Back radiation", nothing about the solar rad or surface black body rad..