Global warming biggest science scandal ever

[elektra]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.

No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.

Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.

And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?

As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?

We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.

If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.

 

[orogenicman]

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.

No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.

Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.

And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?

As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?

We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.

If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.

No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?

 

[westwall]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

It already has.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.

Big deal. It's not against the rules to accuse someone of being a sock, olfraud.

 

[orogenicman]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

It already has.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.

Big deal. It's not against the rules to accuse someone of being a sock, olfraud.

When you do it over and over again, it is called harassment. And THAT is against the rules.

 

[skookerasbil]

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.

No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.

Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.

And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?

As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?

We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.

If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.

No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?

Really s0n............


Well buckle up your chinstrap.............like for the rest of your life. When you and I go in our boxes, oil is still going to be dominating the energy landscape..........coal too......

And renewables?

Take a gander in through this thread and a step out of Middle Earth!!!!

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING Page 372 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/SmileyFace.png.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

You scammers don't know much about science.

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

It already has.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.

Big deal. It's not against the rules to accuse someone of being a sock, olfraud.

When you do it over and over again, it is called harassment. And THAT is against the rules.

OH GAWD

WTF??!!! How the fcuk to these people end up becoming such pronounced limpwristers?

Somehow......progressives learned to succumb in life at every turn. Its fascinating. Let me tell you something........if you are ever in a fox hole with one of these people, kick them the fuck out immediately!

 

[Flash]

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? .

If the scammers can make assumptions about the temperature of the earth then so can anybody else. That is a two way sword.

Dodging the issue, are you?

he chart I showed came from the Greenland ice core data. That data has been used by everyone. Even Al Gore misrepresented it in his stupid movie.

No sir, it came from an unknown google + account. You assume it came from the Greenland Ice Core data (of which there are several), but you don't know where the graph actually came from, so don't say that you do.

The problem with the scammers is they refuse to look at the long term data, as sketchy as it is.

The problem with deniers is that they don't look at ANY data. All they do is read their right wing blogs and trust in 'Rush almighty'.

Are you denying the Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming period and the Minoan Warming period??? Talk about science deniers but you take the cake.

None of which is relevant to the current situation.

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Myth No. 4: There have been big climate changes in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, so why can’t recent climate changes just be explained by natural variability?

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period — times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries — as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can’t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend.

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

Either you accept the historical data and come to the undeniable concussion that there is no evidence of man made interference or you do what the scammers have been caught doing and make up data. Take your choice.

You are confused as to what the historical data is saying. Perhaps you should read from peer reviewed studies and stop relying on people with a vested interest in the petroleum industry, like "Friends of Science", and Watt Inc.

The discrepancies in the stupid references you made are too numerous to mention and I am not going to spend an hour debunking each one only to have it ignored by a AGW religious fanatic like you that has no intentions of learning anything.

Of course you won't. Actually having to work for your conclusion is too much trouble for you, isn't it?

However, I will just briefly mention a couple of points..

The problem with the Harvard/Oregon study is that it uses the same ice core data for historical references but then changes to using scammer manipulated data for later data points. That study has been debunked several times.

Here's what you need to do. You need to produce this so called "scammer manipulated data", and then point out where it was manipulated, and why the manipulation invalidates it. Why? Because you appear to not understand (like so many other deniers) that scientific data is manipulated all the friggin time, in every scientific field. Such manipulation doesn't invalidate it. In fact, such manipulation is often critical for validation. So, bubba, simply claiming that data was manipulated doesn't hold much weight.

Then you had the gall to post the article about the hockey stick graft which has been debunked so many times that it is comical.

The only people who believe that the so-called "hockey stick" has been debunked is people like you who don't understand the science. Scientists understand that it is real, and have validated it using multiple proxies.

A couple of your charts only reference a few years.

Your point?

You may have book marked a bunch of scammer articles but your charts really say nothing to substantiate the scammer conclusion that man is causing a rise in temperature. Neither the historical data or the actual climate during the last 15 years have proven it.

Non-sequitur. Let me ask you some questions, and I do expect a reasonable answer to this. What do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 and billions of tons of other ghgs into the atmosphere each year does to the climate system? Anything at all? Do you honestly believe that nothing happens?

You are typical of confused Libtards. You have this uneducated religious fervor about you to prove the Ted Kaczynsk craziness that technology is destroying mankind. You deny science and you are hell bent on destroying the economy of the US based upon nothing but false and misleading data that has been debunked many times.

Wow, you really ran out of talking points quickly. Oh my. I never said that technology was destroying mankind. Not once. On the contrary, it's the energy source that is the problem. But you already knew that, right?

You are an idiot for believing this scammer bullshit but don't despair. Mankind will most likely destroy itself without climate change. Regardless of the climate the biosphere cannot maintain a population of ten billion humans and there will be a major adjustment along the way.

You sound like you are anxious for that to happen. If that is the case, I am certainly glad you aren't in charge.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science later on this year. I will spend a couple of classes discussing the scam. You really should sign up for the class because you will learn a lot more than the education you think you are getting from The University of Google. Everything will be put into the proper context.

And no doubt your students will all have to go back out and get a real education somewhere else after they realize the scam you have pulled on them. I hate that for them.

For instance, you will learn that there is really no consensus on this AGW scam.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Yeah, a group of Canadian petroleum geologists and petroleum engineers who have published no real work on climate change in peer reviewed journals is really where I want to get my climate science information. What an unbiased source. Not.

I am not going to address every one of your points because you are basically incoherent and in your Scammer denial mode and it would be a waste of time.

Arguing with a Scammer religious zealot like you that that denies the science facts and clings to the Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber) train of thought that it is bad to use the cheapest form of energy always is a waste of time. No matter how much you try to educate a pig at the end of the day they are still a pig that is incapable of learning.

I use to have scores of references bookmarked so when I got into a discussion with a Scammer like you I could destroy you with facts but what I have discovered is that no matter what I posted it was denied or ignored so I have given up on trying to teach the pig how to sing. It is simply not worth the effort to educate a Moon Bat. Google Wars never accomplish anything in an Internet Discussion Board.

Being an Environmental Engineer and working in the field for 30 years I understand the effects of pollution and the damage it is doing to the Biosphere, which is significant. I have no problem in acknowledging AGW if it is real. It ain't real.

Being trained in science has always led me to look at things objectively. After retiring I decided to teach a course now and then on Environmental Science so I spent quite a bit of time researching this issue of AGW because I knew it would be discussed and I wanted to get it right. The conclusion was undeniable; it is a scam. One of the biggest scams in world history if not the biggest. The basic science the Scammers use is flawed, the data they use is flawed and more importantly they have been caught manipulating the data but yet still claim the false data is accurate.

I am not going to take the time to lay out all the facts on this issue because it takes quite a bit of time and at the end you will go into your Scammer religious cult denial mode like you did above because you really don't want to hear the facts. I have summarized the facts a couple of times in this thread and that is all the energy I am willing to put into it. If you want to believe this Scammer horseshit then go right ahead. Moon Bats like you believe all kinds of silly things. That is why we call you Moon Bats.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? .

If the scammers can make assumptions about the temperature of the earth then so can anybody else. That is a two way sword.

Dodging the issue, are you?

he chart I showed came from the Greenland ice core data. That data has been used by everyone. Even Al Gore misrepresented it in his stupid movie.

No sir, it came from an unknown google + account. You assume it came from the Greenland Ice Core data (of which there are several), but you don't know where the graph actually came from, so don't say that you do.

The problem with the scammers is they refuse to look at the long term data, as sketchy as it is.

The problem with deniers is that they don't look at ANY data. All they do is read their right wing blogs and trust in 'Rush almighty'.

Are you denying the Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming period and the Minoan Warming period??? Talk about science deniers but you take the cake.

None of which is relevant to the current situation.

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Myth No. 4: There have been big climate changes in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, so why can’t recent climate changes just be explained by natural variability?

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period — times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries — as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can’t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend.

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

Either you accept the historical data and come to the undeniable concussion that there is no evidence of man made interference or you do what the scammers have been caught doing and make up data. Take your choice.

You are confused as to what the historical data is saying. Perhaps you should read from peer reviewed studies and stop relying on people with a vested interest in the petroleum industry, like "Friends of Science", and Watt Inc.

The discrepancies in the stupid references you made are too numerous to mention and I am not going to spend an hour debunking each one only to have it ignored by a AGW religious fanatic like you that has no intentions of learning anything.

Of course you won't. Actually having to work for your conclusion is too much trouble for you, isn't it?

However, I will just briefly mention a couple of points..

The problem with the Harvard/Oregon study is that it uses the same ice core data for historical references but then changes to using scammer manipulated data for later data points. That study has been debunked several times.

Here's what you need to do. You need to produce this so called "scammer manipulated data", and then point out where it was manipulated, and why the manipulation invalidates it. Why? Because you appear to not understand (like so many other deniers) that scientific data is manipulated all the friggin time, in every scientific field. Such manipulation doesn't invalidate it. In fact, such manipulation is often critical for validation. So, bubba, simply claiming that data was manipulated doesn't hold much weight.

Then you had the gall to post the article about the hockey stick graft which has been debunked so many times that it is comical.

The only people who believe that the so-called "hockey stick" has been debunked is people like you who don't understand the science. Scientists understand that it is real, and have validated it using multiple proxies.

A couple of your charts only reference a few years.

Your point?

You may have book marked a bunch of scammer articles but your charts really say nothing to substantiate the scammer conclusion that man is causing a rise in temperature. Neither the historical data or the actual climate during the last 15 years have proven it.

Non-sequitur. Let me ask you some questions, and I do expect a reasonable answer to this. What do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 and billions of tons of other ghgs into the atmosphere each year does to the climate system? Anything at all? Do you honestly believe that nothing happens?

You are typical of confused Libtards. You have this uneducated religious fervor about you to prove the Ted Kaczynsk craziness that technology is destroying mankind. You deny science and you are hell bent on destroying the economy of the US based upon nothing but false and misleading data that has been debunked many times.

Wow, you really ran out of talking points quickly. Oh my. I never said that technology was destroying mankind. Not once. On the contrary, it's the energy source that is the problem. But you already knew that, right?

You are an idiot for believing this scammer bullshit but don't despair. Mankind will most likely destroy itself without climate change. Regardless of the climate the biosphere cannot maintain a population of ten billion humans and there will be a major adjustment along the way.

You sound like you are anxious for that to happen. If that is the case, I am certainly glad you aren't in charge.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science later on this year. I will spend a couple of classes discussing the scam. You really should sign up for the class because you will learn a lot more than the education you think you are getting from The University of Google. Everything will be put into the proper context.

And no doubt your students will all have to go back out and get a real education somewhere else after they realize the scam you have pulled on them. I hate that for them.

For instance, you will learn that there is really no consensus on this AGW scam.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Yeah, a group of Canadian petroleum geologists and petroleum engineers who have published no real work on climate change in peer reviewed journals is really where I want to get my climate science information. What an unbiased source. Not.

I am not going to address every one of your points because you are basically incoherent and in your Scammer denial mode and it would be a waste of time.

Arguing with a Scammer religious zealot like you that that denies the science facts and clings to the Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber) train of thought that it is bad to use the cheapest form of energy always is a waste of time. No matter how much you try to educate a pig at the end of the day they are still a pig that is incapable of learning.

I use to have scores of references bookmarked so when I got into a discussion with a Scammer like you I could destroy you with facts but what I have discovered is that no matter what I posted it was denied or ignored so I have given up on trying to teach the pig how to sing. It is simply not worth the effort to educate a Moon Bat. Google Wars never accomplish anything in an Internet Discussion Board.

Being an Environmental Engineer and working in the field for 30 years I understand the effects of pollution and the damage it is doing to the Biosphere, which is significant. I have no problem in acknowledging AGW if it is real. It ain't real.

Being trained in science has always led me to look at things objectively. After retiring I decided to teach a course now and then on Environmental Science so I spent quite a bit of time researching this issue of AGW because I knew it would be discussed and I wanted to get it right. The conclusion was undeniable; it is a scam. One of the biggest scams in world history if not the biggest. The basic science the Scammers use is flawed, the data they use is flawed and more importantly they been caught manipulating the data but yet still claim the false data is accurate.

I am not going to take the time to lay out all the facts on this issue because it takes quite a bit of time and at the end you will go into your Scammer religious cult denial mode like you did above because you really don't want to hear the facts. I have summarized the facts a couple of times in this thread and that is all the energy I am willing to put into it. If you want to believe this Scammer horseshit then go right ahead. Moon Bats like you believe all kinds of silly things. That is why we call you Moon Bats.

Of course you aren't going to support your extraordinary claims. Few people like you do. No surprise there. Neither am I surprised by your sophmoric ad hominem. It is what you folks do best.

You say you are/were an environmental engineer? I am a geologist who worked in environmental consulting starting in 1990. So what? Understanding CERCLA and RCRA is irrelevant to the climate change debate. Of course, you know that, but just wanted to try to impress me. Sorry. Few engineers truly impress me, and believe me, I know quite a few. If I want you to design a soil vacuum extraction system for me, I might allow you to bid on a design (that is, assuming that you even know what that is). If I want the latest information on climate change, I'll consult peer reviewed publications. Good day.

 

[Flash]

[


Of course you aren't going to support your extraordinary claims. Few people like you do. No surprise there. Neither am I surprised by your sophmoric ad hominem. It is what you folks do best.

You say you are/were an environmental engineer? I am a geologist who worked in environmental consulting starting in 1990. So what? Understanding CERCLA and RCRA is irrelevant to the climate change debate. Of course, you know that, but just wanted to try to impress me. Sorry. Few engineers truly impress me, and believe me, I know quite a few. If I want you to design a soil vacuum extraction system for me, I might allow you to bid on a design (that is, assuming that you even know what that is). If I want the latest information on climate change, I'll consult peer reviewed publications. Good day.

Teaching a Scammer about science is like trying to tell a Muslim terrorist that he ain't gonna get his 69 Virgins after he blew up the World Trade Center.

You can talk until you are blue in the face but the idiot still believes in the horseshit.

This AGW horseshit has been elevated to the level of religious zealotry by the Scammers and no amount of facts are ever going to change their minds. After all, they are Moon Bats so not much is expected of them, is there?

 

[orogenicman]

[


Of course you aren't going to support your extraordinary claims. Few people like you do. No surprise there. Neither am I surprised by your sophmoric ad hominem. It is what you folks do best.

You say you are/were an environmental engineer? I am a geologist who worked in environmental consulting starting in 1990. So what? Understanding CERCLA and RCRA is irrelevant to the climate change debate. Of course, you know that, but just wanted to try to impress me. Sorry. Few engineers truly impress me, and believe me, I know quite a few. If I want you to design a soil vacuum extraction system for me, I might allow you to bid on a design (that is, assuming that you even know what that is). If I want the latest information on climate change, I'll consult peer reviewed publications. Good day.

Teaching a Scammer about science is like trying to tell a Muslim terrorist that he ain't gonna get his 69 Virgins after he blew up the World Trade Center.

You can talk until you are blue in the face but the idiot still believes in the horseshit.

This AGW horseshit has been elevated to the level of religious zealotry by the Scammers and no amount of facts are ever going to change their minds. After all, they are Moon Bats so not much is expected of them, is there?

Comparing people who agree with science to the 9/11 terrorists is about as idiotic as you could have gotten. It is almost as bad as you believing that the world's scientists are conspiring to promote a fraud wrt climate change and claiming that you are going to "teach the controversy" like the creationists claim to do wrt evolution. Do you also oppose evolution? It would come as no surprise if you do.

 

[Flash]

The Scammer religious zealots are almost always Left Wing Moon Bats that never get it right on anything.

This scam is designed to appeal to the uneducated and gullible among us. The same idiots that believe that increased taxation somehow produces prosperity or that the economy will do better if we take money from those that earn it and give it to those that didn't earn it.

These are the same idiots that refuse to understand that when the Scammers were caught manipulating data that their credibility was pretty much discredited. Or when CO2 levels were higher and that the earth was cooler and the CO2 levels lower and when the earth was warmer then maybe this thingy about CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not as relevant as the Scammers have been telling us.

The Moon Bats never disappoint us in their stupidity, do they?

They are to be pitied and ridiculed but never to be taken seriously.

 

[orogenicman]

The Scammer religious zealots are almost always Left Wing Moon Bats that never get it right on anything.

This scam is designed to appeal to the uneducated and gullible among us. The same idiots that believe that increased taxation somehow produces prosperity or that the economy will do better if we take money from those that earn it and give it to those that didn't earn it.

These are the same idiots that refuse to understand that when the Scammers were caught manipulating data that their credibility was pretty much discredited. Or when CO2 levels were higher and that the earth was cooler and the CO2 levels lower and when the earth was warmer then maybe this thingy about CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not as relevant as the Scammers have been telling us.

The Moon Bats never disappoint us in their stupidity, do they?

They are to be pitied and ridiculed but never to be taken seriously.

Wow, that rant sure was all over the place. Are you sure it isn't time to take your meds?

 

[greyviper]

The Scammer religious zealots are almost always Left Wing Moon Bats that never get it right on anything.

This scam is designed to appeal to the uneducated and gullible among us. The same idiots that believe that increased taxation somehow produces prosperity or that the economy will do better if we take money from those that earn it and give it to those that didn't earn it.

These are the same idiots that refuse to understand that when the Scammers were caught manipulating data that their credibility was pretty much discredited. Or when CO2 levels were higher and that the earth was cooler and the CO2 levels lower and when the earth was warmer then maybe this thingy about CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not as relevant as the Scammers have been telling us.

The Moon Bats never disappoint us in their stupidity, do they?

They are to be pitied and ridiculed but never to be taken seriously.

Wow, that rant sure was all over the place. Are you sure it isn't time to take your meds?

I guess he doesn't to...coz' he was already overd0sed.

 

[orogenicman]

The Scammer religious zealots are almost always Left Wing Moon Bats that never get it right on anything.

This scam is designed to appeal to the uneducated and gullible among us. The same idiots that believe that increased taxation somehow produces prosperity or that the economy will do better if we take money from those that earn it and give it to those that didn't earn it.

These are the same idiots that refuse to understand that when the Scammers were caught manipulating data that their credibility was pretty much discredited. Or when CO2 levels were higher and that the earth was cooler and the CO2 levels lower and when the earth was warmer then maybe this thingy about CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not as relevant as the Scammers have been telling us.

The Moon Bats never disappoint us in their stupidity, do they?

They are to be pitied and ridiculed but never to be taken seriously.

Wow, that rant sure was all over the place. Are you sure it isn't time to take your meds?

I guess he doesn't to...coz' he was already overd0sed.

Apparently so.

 

[greyviper]

What is the latest out there in the other side of the world?

 

[orogenicman]

What is the latest out there in the other side of the world?

What, for you, is the other side of the world?

 

[greyviper]

What is the latest out there in the other side of the world?

What, for you, is the other side of the world?

you know, the much weirder w0rld...

 

[orogenicman]

What is the latest out there in the other side of the world?

What, for you, is the other side of the world?

you know, the much weirder w0rld...

That would, of course, include nearly all of it.

 

[westwall]

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

It already has.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.

Big deal. It's not against the rules to accuse someone of being a sock, olfraud.

When you do it over and over again, it is called harassment. And THAT is against the rules.

OH GAWD

WTF??!!! How the fcuk to these people end up becoming such pronounced limpwristers?

Somehow......progressives learned to succumb in life at every turn. Its fascinating. Let me tell you something........if you are ever in a fox hole with one of these people, kick them the fuck out immediately!

What I find amusing is the number of progressives who act like complete children when they don't get their way. They pout, they whine, they snivel. These idiots have never grown up and become adults! The clown faces on here have run to momma and whined about some supposed terrible thing that I have done to them that it is truly funny. They demand we listen to them but they are nothing more than children.

 

[Flash]

Once you take away the bogus temperature charts that the creators themselves admitted were fabricated and once you take away the computer programs that were always shit in shit out in order to get research grants the Scammers have absolutely nothing.

There is nothing except that in the past couple of thousand years that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from about .027% to about .040% which is negligible and not out of line with historical increases and decreases. Meanwhile we have nice warm weather globally that is supporting seven billion people.

The Scammers have been able to indoctrinate the uneducated gullible shitheads in the world. The Moon Bats that are confused about most things. It makes Muslim extremism indoctrination look tame by comparisons.

I feel sorry for that level of ignorance. It is like we are living in the Dark Ages again.