How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

[SSDD]

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.

 

[SSDD]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Most certainly a useful idiot...I am sure that if they were going to pay, at least they could get a fake engineer that could at least read a simple graph.

 

[SSDD]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

 

[SSDD]

Another appeal to authority and not a single shred of empirical evidence.. Just what I expect from idiots like crick and alarmists in general.

Another knowingly unsubstantiated assertion (akam a lie) about AR5. Just what I'd expect from Billy Bob who claims to be an atmospheric physicist

You claimed that there was empirical evidence that proved that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause warming in that paper....but you haven't brought it forward....were you just talking out of your ass when you made the claim?

 

[SSDD]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.

However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.

• What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
• Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
• Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
• Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
  
• Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.

I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.

Easy.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

I have asked before rocks...where one can find some actual empirical evidence in that religious tract....every time before, you have failed to point out even one bit of actual evidence in the whole thing...so I am asking agin...where is the hard empirical evidence in that link or any of the links it points to. My bet is that you will maintain your perfect record and not be able to point to anything like real evidence in that paper and to calm your hysterical side, you will call me some inane schoolyard name, offer up some sort of ad hominem, and appeal to some questionable authority.....so go ahead....begin.

 

[SSDD]

97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions.
And there isn't a skeptic on the denier side of this room. Not one.

That's total BULLSHIT Bullwinkle and you know it. There is no evidence whatsoever that 97% of Climate scientists accept the IPCC reports as Holy Scripture. First -- there is a WIDE RANGE of questions and scenarios in those reports and very few SPECIFIC conclusions. And Second -- those conclusions have largely been a moving target over the years.

I don't know where you get this shit. Certainly not was quoted in that crap Nutti SkepSchitScience poll of yours.

And I am a climate skeptic.

It could be that climate science is just that stupid....but then climate science is a soft science and can't be depended on for much actual science anyway...

 

[SSDD]

So manboob is still running around in a circle like a mad dog on a leash tethered to his bedrock of foolishness.

When WE rub your nose in YOUR shit, you dopey bitch, it's to TRY to teach you that you are to go outside when it is time to shit.

Dopey bitch.

Such an erudite reply. I salute the intellect it demonstrates.

Such an erudite reply...I distain the lack of intellect it demonstrates.

 

[SSDD]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.

However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.

• What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
• Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
• Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
• Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
  
• Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.

I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.

Easy.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

The notion, expressed in the Tyndall speculation to which you just linked us, of greenhouse gasses being released by humankind somehow causing a greenhouse effect doesn't actually qualify as scientific "evidence."

Besides, the question wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the sanctimonious author of the OP.

We've all had more than plenty of your lazy smirking self-satisfied banalities.

You dumb fuck. You don't even know what Tyndall did.

by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999

John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.

In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.

Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

And here is what John Tyndall had to say about the absorptive power of CO2...since you seem to respect him so much.

n my experiments, however, with a tube 4 feet long and polished within, which makes the distance traversed by the reflected rays more than 4 feet, the absorption is only one-tenth of the above amount. In the experiments of Dr. Franz, carbonic acid appears as a feebler absorber than oxygen

In the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

In fact, Tyndal didn't seem to be able to talk about CO2 at all without mentioning what a feeble absorber it is...and yet, you believe that a 0.0004 mole fraction is going to burn us all. Are you really that gullible?

 

[skookerasbil]

Evidently...........nobody cares about the 97%!!! Less and less each year actually!!!

The AGW bozo's spend billion of hours on public forums falling all over themselves to defend the "settled" science.................but still, nobody cares!!!

Poll: Sorry Obama, nobody cares about global warming


The Intersectionist


No one cares about climate change? (Opinion) - CNN.com


Apparently nobody cares about the environment anymore




Its but a hobby s0ns!!!


In the real world, the science isn't mattering!!

 

[skookerasbil]

NEANDERTHAL WINNING

 

[daws101]

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.

I PredictI

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.

I predicted you'd say that!

 

[daws101]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

trailer trash are always first to rationalize.

 

[Old Rocks]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.

However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.

• What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
• Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
• Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
• Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
  
• Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.

I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.

Easy.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

The notion, expressed in the Tyndall speculation to which you just linked us, of greenhouse gasses being released by humankind somehow causing a greenhouse effect doesn't actually qualify as scientific "evidence."

Besides, the question wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the sanctimonious author of the OP.

We've all had more than plenty of your lazy smirking self-satisfied banalities.

You dumb fuck. You don't even know what Tyndall did.

by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999

John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.

In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.

Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

And here is what John Tyndall had to say about the absorptive power of CO2...since you seem to respect him so much.

n my experiments, however, with a tube 4 feet long and polished within, which makes the distance traversed by the reflected rays more than 4 feet, the absorption is only one-tenth of the above amount. In the experiments of Dr. Franz, carbonic acid appears as a feebler absorber than oxygen

In the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

In fact, Tyndal didn't seem to be able to talk about CO2 at all without mentioning what a feeble absorber it is...and yet, you believe that a 0.0004 mole fraction is going to burn us all. Are you really that gullible?

Really? But you failed to include a link. Could there be a reason for that? Perhaps, like Silly Billy, you are pulling this out of your ass.

 

[daws101]

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

trailer trash are always first to rationalize.

P

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

trailer trash are always first to rationalize.

Why did you post something when you have no clue to what it means?

 

[SSDD]

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.

I PredictI

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.

I predicted you'd say that!

Challenged are you? Here is the problem with your thinking....I predicted what you would do yesterday at 1:10pm eastern time....you then proceeded to do what I predicted at 1:22 pm eastern time. You on the other hand copied a post that I made at 6:23am eastern time this morning and made your prediction at at 1:13pm eastern....see the difference? I predicted what you would do before you did it....12 minutes before you did it to be exact....you predicted what I would say more than 4 hours after I said it...clearly you want to be funny, but alas, liberals are humorless, bitter ass holes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.

However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.

• What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
• Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
• Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
• Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
  
• Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.

I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.

Easy.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

The notion, expressed in the Tyndall speculation to which you just linked us, of greenhouse gasses being released by humankind somehow causing a greenhouse effect doesn't actually qualify as scientific "evidence."

Besides, the question wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the sanctimonious author of the OP.

We've all had more than plenty of your lazy smirking self-satisfied banalities.

You dumb fuck. You don't even know what Tyndall did.

by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999

John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.

In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.

Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

And yet Tyndall did not define what each of those componates do or how they affect one another in our atmosphere...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another appeal to authority and not a single shred of empirical evidence.. Just what I expect from idiots like crick and alarmists in general.

Another knowingly unsubstantiated assertion (akam a lie) about AR5. Just what I'd expect from Billy Bob who claims to be an atmospheric physicist

Lots of Adhom and not a lick of evidence to prove his own assertion? Whats wrong, your IPCC data get updated and changed again?

 

[Crick]

Your assertion, that AR5 has no empirical data, is a blatant lie, as is your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics. That you lie is a pertinent observation when we're discussing your lies on a dozen other topics.