It's still going up boys and girls

[skookerasbil]

I have presented a lot of data here. What data do you believe has been fabricated? Temperatures? CO2 levels? Ice sheet area? Glacial mass loss?

But the climate hysterics have been posting up the same graphs/maps ( in vivid color btw ) for 10 years in here and what has changed? The answer is.......nothing.

The entire world knows about the "data".........but nobody is caring. Look at how miniscule renewable energy continues to be........with no end in sight. As I pointed out ( rather astutely ) earlier this morning with a new thread, fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for decades to come thus proving.........nobody is caring about the data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have presented a lot of data here. What data do you believe has been fabricated? Temperatures? CO2 levels? Ice sheet area? Glacial mass loss?

But the climate hysterics have been posting up the same graphs/maps ( in vivid color btw ) for 10 years in here and what has changed? The answer is.......nothing.

The entire world knows about the "data".........but nobody is caring. Look at how miniscule renewable energy continues to be........with no end in sight. As I pointed out ( rather astutely ) earlier this morning with a new thread, fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for decades to come thus proving.........nobody is caring about the data.

He doesn't back up his misleading/phony charts with links, that is why I know HE is a phony, a person who has no confidence in the "data" he posts.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 476779

NASA and NOAA both lost their credibility when they were caught red handed fabricating data.

Trump tried to purge the organization of the lying bastards but it looks like they are back under Joe Dufus.

They need to learn how to calibrate their satellite temperature senors. They make stupid claims of .5 Degree F temperature changes but their sensors are +/- 4-6 Degrees F.

Let's see some links discussing how NASA and NOAA were caught red-handed fabricating data.

 

[Crick]

Very close to 100% of the thousands of published and active climate scientists around the world accept anthropogenic global warming as valid and a threat.

We're back to global warming?
What happened to climate change?

I have consistently used the term global warming and anthropogenic global warming. When I am talking about climate change I will also use the term "climate change" but I have no reticence calling a spade a spade. The problem under discussion is the warming of the planet due to human GHG emisssions: anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Crick]

You are confused Moon Bat.

I am not. Unlike you, I am the one quoting published data from peer reviewed journals. I haven't seen you post anything except your unsupportable claims.

There is absolutely NO evidence that any significant increase in global warming is caused by human activity. Just some bullshit correlations and some very flawed commuter programs that are depended on fraudulent inputs.

This is an idiotic statement. CO2's absorption spectrum is evidence. The Keeling curve is evidence. Isotopic analyses of CO2 in the atmosphere identifying the portion originating in the combustion of fossil fuel is evidence. IR spectra taken of the emissions of the atmosphere from the surface and from orbit are evidence. Global temperature data are evidence.

You are simply reading the Left Wing garbage that is perpetuating the scam so you are not getting the real story.

The assessment reports of the IPCC are not "left wing garbage". That you should make such a statement inclines me to believe that YOU'VE been reading nothing but right wing garbage on the topic.

I am an Environmental Engineer. An advanced degree and 30 years experience dealing with man made pollution. I have remediated more real man made pollution in my career than a million Envirinmental Wackos will see in their life times. Taught Environmental courses in college for awhile after retiring. I am not a climate expert but I am very well read on the subject. Much more than the average Environmental Wacko that is convinced that AGW is real. When you look at the real data you find out it is a house of cards that falls apart because there is no real evidence. All of these statements that you see are predicated on data that was either fabricated, cherry picked or just plain made up.

The last two sentences here tell me that the first three are blatant lies. Show us what you believe to be "the real data".

Let me tell one little story. I worked as an Environmental Director in nuclear weapons faculty that had an adjacent National Laboratory. In 1998 that nutcase Al Gore commissioned the Lab to look at all the published papers and reports to determine the validity of AGW. He expected them to validate the AGW assumption. However, the conclusion didn't do that. The report said that supporting data for AWG was tremendously flawed and there was no reliable evidence of AGW. I got to review the paper along with other Environmental professionals.

I find the idea that a weapons research laboratory would be redirected to do climate science research by the vice-president more evidence that you are lying about yourself and haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Funny thing. When the report did not validate what the Slick Willy administration wanted it to do then it was swept under the rug. I still have my copy. I was suppose to return it but I never did.

Post a scan of the cover.

 

[Stryder50]

CO2 is one part of 2,500* in ratio of the dry atmospheric composition. The other 2,499 being the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. ACC/AGW says that if the "1" of CO2 gains a couple degrees of temperature increase, that level of increase is passed on to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere (and than transfers to the dry land surface and the oceans). This is reams of pseudoscience beyond what we find in fantasy and science fiction novels.

* Those 2,500 parts of dry atmosphere(not counting the 10%+ factor of water vapor in addition) work out to 1,950 parts of nitrogen, 525 parts of oxygen, 24 parts of argon and other "gases" and ONE part of CO2 (carbon dioxide).

The at home experiment to replicate the phony science of ACC/AGW;
Take an empty 2 liter plastic soda bottle and fill it with 2 liters (2,000 milliliters) of distilled water that is at 70 degrees F. Now add to this 1/8 teaspoon of water at 75 degrees F. (the 1/8 teaspoon represents the CO2 portion of 1/2500 or 0.8ml).

According to the hypothesis of ACC/AGW that 1/8 teaspoon at 75 degrees F. is supposed to increase the other 2,000ml at 70 degrees F. by 1-2 more degrees F. bringing the full contents up to about 71-72 degrees F.

Get back to me if you can make this "experiment" work that way and can indisputably document such results.

Science is based upon replication of results that validate the hypothesis.

 

[Stryder50]

View attachment 476779

And if you go on a scale of millions of years instead of just recent 140 years, one notices the temperatures have been higher and so have the CO2 levels, yet there is no linkage of the CO2 level driving the temperatures.
Just one of many that could be shown;

ALSO;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320123470/figure/fig4/AS:544116959789056@1506739000327/Temperature-T-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-CO2-concentration-proxies-during-the.png

 

[Stryder50]

https://rockyhigh66.org/stuff/tempco2570mlefttoright.png

 

[frigidweirdo]

View attachment 476779

But why is it going up?

What would the temperatures have been without industrialization of humanity?

 

[westwall]

View attachment 476779

Only thanks to computer models, little troll.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Everyone who has not been played for fools by the fossil fuel companies knows that carbon emissions are responsible for climate change and that those emissions must be slowed to prevent catastrophe.

How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation

Activists say Democratic climate proposals won’t be able to pass until lawmakers put a stop to oil companies trying to rebrand themselves

www.theguardian.com

The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action.

Fossil fuel interests have spent millions funding climate change denial — allowing them to protect dirty energy while remaining out of the public eye.

www.climaterealityproject.org

Its the fossil fuel companies that are also pushing the Gorebull Warming BS...........In fact, Ken lay of Enron was one its founding members while the oil companies invest hugely $$$$ into Carbon Credit BS and stand to profit off this scam as well.

 

[westwall]

It will be enough that you will not have to spend three times that amount dealing with the consequences.

A laughable assertion. You could move every city in the world to higher ground for less money.

 

[westwall]

There are a whole lot of experts in many different fields who disagree with you. I know you're not so silly as to think you're smarter than all of them nor so naive as to think that many people would willfully lie to the public. So why do you say things like that? The truth may be unpleasant, but, as we all know, ignoring it will only make it worse.

They all have one thing in common. They make their money from so called green companies.

Thus their opinions are biased towards their making money.

Ergo, they lie.

 

[westwall]

I have presented a lot of data here. What data do you believe has been fabricated? Temperatures? CO2 levels? Ice sheet area? Glacial mass loss?

False data doesn't count

 

[Flash]

You are confused Moon Bat.

I am not. Unlike you, I am the one quoting published data from peer reviewed journals. I haven't seen you post anything except your unsupportable claims.

There is absolutely NO evidence that any significant increase in global warming is caused by human activity. Just some bullshit correlations and some very flawed commuter programs that are depended on fraudulent inputs.

This is an idiotic statement. CO2's absorption spectrum is evidence. The Keeling curve is evidence. Isotopic analyses of CO2 in the atmosphere identifying the portion originating in the combustion of fossil fuel is evidence. IR spectra taken of the emissions of the atmosphere from the surface and from orbit are evidence. Global temperature data are evidence.

You are simply reading the Left Wing garbage that is perpetuating the scam so you are not getting the real story.

The assessment reports of the IPCC are not "left wing garbage". That you should make such a statement inclines me to believe that YOU'VE been reading nothing but right wing garbage on the topic.

I am an Environmental Engineer. An advanced degree and 30 years experience dealing with man made pollution. I have remediated more real man made pollution in my career than a million Envirinmental Wackos will see in their life times. Taught Environmental courses in college for awhile after retiring. I am not a climate expert but I am very well read on the subject. Much more than the average Environmental Wacko that is convinced that AGW is real. When you look at the real data you find out it is a house of cards that falls apart because there is no real evidence. All of these statements that you see are predicated on data that was either fabricated, cherry picked or just plain made up.

The last two sentences here tell me that the first three are blatant lies. Show us what you believe to be "the real data".

Let me tell one little story. I worked as an Environmental Director in nuclear weapons faculty that had an adjacent National Laboratory. In 1998 that nutcase Al Gore commissioned the Lab to look at all the published papers and reports to determine the validity of AGW. He expected them to validate the AGW assumption. However, the conclusion didn't do that. The report said that supporting data for AWG was tremendously flawed and there was no reliable evidence of AGW. I got to review the paper along with other Environmental professionals.

I find the idea that a weapons research laboratory would be redirected to do climate science research by the vice-president more evidence that you are lying about yourself and haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Funny thing. When the report did not validate what the Slick Willy administration wanted it to do then it was swept under the rug. I still have my copy. I was suppose to return it but I never did.

Post a scan of the cover.

If you want to be a stupid Moon Bat and believe in the scam then enjoy your ignorance.

Over the last 20 years or so I have spent a considerable amount of time on these internet discussion boards educating you uneducated Moon Bats on the scam but you never want to know the facts.

I don't even bother anymore because the scam is like a religion to you morons. You don't want to know the facts. You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are are as ignorant of Climate Science as you are of History, Economics, Biology, Ethics and the Constitution.

In my retirement as an Environmental Engineer I occasionally teach a course in Environment Science at an University. One of the largest ones in the state. You really should sign up for the course. I spend a unit on discussing the scam. You will learn something that you don't know now.

 

[Crick]

You are confused Moon Bat.

I am not. Unlike you, I am the one quoting published data from peer reviewed journals. I haven't seen you post anything except your unsupportable claims.

There is absolutely NO evidence that any significant increase in global warming is caused by human activity. Just some bullshit correlations and some very flawed commuter programs that are depended on fraudulent inputs.

This is an idiotic statement. CO2's absorption spectrum is evidence. The Keeling curve is evidence. Isotopic analyses of CO2 in the atmosphere identifying the portion originating in the combustion of fossil fuel is evidence. IR spectra taken of the emissions of the atmosphere from the surface and from orbit are evidence. Global temperature data are evidence.

You are simply reading the Left Wing garbage that is perpetuating the scam so you are not getting the real story.

The assessment reports of the IPCC are not "left wing garbage". That you should make such a statement inclines me to believe that YOU'VE been reading nothing but right wing garbage on the topic.

I am an Environmental Engineer. An advanced degree and 30 years experience dealing with man made pollution. I have remediated more real man made pollution in my career than a million Envirinmental Wackos will see in their life times. Taught Environmental courses in college for awhile after retiring. I am not a climate expert but I am very well read on the subject. Much more than the average Environmental Wacko that is convinced that AGW is real. When you look at the real data you find out it is a house of cards that falls apart because there is no real evidence. All of these statements that you see are predicated on data that was either fabricated, cherry picked or just plain made up.

The last two sentences here tell me that the first three are blatant lies. Show us what you believe to be "the real data".

Let me tell one little story. I worked as an Environmental Director in nuclear weapons faculty that had an adjacent National Laboratory. In 1998 that nutcase Al Gore commissioned the Lab to look at all the published papers and reports to determine the validity of AGW. He expected them to validate the AGW assumption. However, the conclusion didn't do that. The report said that supporting data for AWG was tremendously flawed and there was no reliable evidence of AGW. I got to review the paper along with other Environmental professionals.

I find the idea that a weapons research laboratory would be redirected to do climate science research by the vice-president more evidence that you are lying about yourself and haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Funny thing. When the report did not validate what the Slick Willy administration wanted it to do then it was swept under the rug. I still have my copy. I was suppose to return it but I never did.

Post a scan of the cover.

If you want to be a stupid Moon Bat and believe in the scam then enjoy your ignorance.

Over the last 20 years or so I have spent a considerable amount of time on these internet discussion boards educating you uneducated Moon Bats on the scam but you never want to know the facts.

I don't even bother anymore because the scam is like a religion to you morons. You don't want to know the facts. You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are are as ignornat of Climate Science as you are of History, Economics, Biology, Ethics and the Constitution.

In my retirement as an Environmental Engineer I occasionally teach a course in Environment Science at an University. One of the largest ones in the state. You really should sign up for the course. I spend a unit on discussing the scam. You will learn something that you don't know now.

Post a scan of the cover of the report you claim to possess.

 

[Crick]

There are a whole lot of experts in many different fields who disagree with you. I know you're not so silly as to think you're smarter than all of them nor so naive as to think that many people would willfully lie to the public. So why do you say things like that? The truth may be unpleasant, but, as we all know, ignoring it will only make it worse.

They all have one thing in common. They make their money from so called green companies.

Thus their opinions are biased towards their making money.

Ergo, they lie.

Your claim is ludicrous.

 

[westwall]

There are a whole lot of experts in many different fields who disagree with you. I know you're not so silly as to think you're smarter than all of them nor so naive as to think that many people would willfully lie to the public. So why do you say things like that? The truth may be unpleasant, but, as we all know, ignoring it will only make it worse.

They all have one thing in common. They make their money from so called green companies.

Thus their opinions are biased towards their making money.

Ergo, they lie.

Your claim is ludicrous.

No, it is factually correct.

Unlike your idiocy.

 

[Crick]

There are a whole lot of experts in many different fields who disagree with you. I know you're not so silly as to think you're smarter than all of them nor so naive as to think that many people would willfully lie to the public. So why do you say things like that? The truth may be unpleasant, but, as we all know, ignoring it will only make it worse.

They all have one thing in common. They make their money from so called green companies.

Thus their opinions are biased towards their making money.

Ergo, they lie.

Your claim is ludicrous.

No, it is factually correct.

Unlike your idiocy.

Your claim lacks so much specificity that it is not logically possible for it to be "factually correct". Your claim is ludicrous. If you want to fix it, bring us REAL evidence to support your claims.

 

[Flash]

You are confused Moon Bat.

I am not. Unlike you, I am the one quoting published data from peer reviewed journals. I haven't seen you post anything except your unsupportable claims.

There is absolutely NO evidence that any significant increase in global warming is caused by human activity. Just some bullshit correlations and some very flawed commuter programs that are depended on fraudulent inputs.

This is an idiotic statement. CO2's absorption spectrum is evidence. The Keeling curve is evidence. Isotopic analyses of CO2 in the atmosphere identifying the portion originating in the combustion of fossil fuel is evidence. IR spectra taken of the emissions of the atmosphere from the surface and from orbit are evidence. Global temperature data are evidence.

You are simply reading the Left Wing garbage that is perpetuating the scam so you are not getting the real story.

The assessment reports of the IPCC are not "left wing garbage". That you should make such a statement inclines me to believe that YOU'VE been reading nothing but right wing garbage on the topic.

I am an Environmental Engineer. An advanced degree and 30 years experience dealing with man made pollution. I have remediated more real man made pollution in my career than a million Envirinmental Wackos will see in their life times. Taught Environmental courses in college for awhile after retiring. I am not a climate expert but I am very well read on the subject. Much more than the average Environmental Wacko that is convinced that AGW is real. When you look at the real data you find out it is a house of cards that falls apart because there is no real evidence. All of these statements that you see are predicated on data that was either fabricated, cherry picked or just plain made up.

The last two sentences here tell me that the first three are blatant lies. Show us what you believe to be "the real data".

Let me tell one little story. I worked as an Environmental Director in nuclear weapons faculty that had an adjacent National Laboratory. In 1998 that nutcase Al Gore commissioned the Lab to look at all the published papers and reports to determine the validity of AGW. He expected them to validate the AGW assumption. However, the conclusion didn't do that. The report said that supporting data for AWG was tremendously flawed and there was no reliable evidence of AGW. I got to review the paper along with other Environmental professionals.

I find the idea that a weapons research laboratory would be redirected to do climate science research by the vice-president more evidence that you are lying about yourself and haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Funny thing. When the report did not validate what the Slick Willy administration wanted it to do then it was swept under the rug. I still have my copy. I was suppose to return it but I never did.

Post a scan of the cover.

If you want to be a stupid Moon Bat and believe in the scam then enjoy your ignorance.

Over the last 20 years or so I have spent a considerable amount of time on these internet discussion boards educating you uneducated Moon Bats on the scam but you never want to know the facts.

I don't even bother anymore because the scam is like a religion to you morons. You don't want to know the facts. You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are are as ignornat of Climate Science as you are of History, Economics, Biology, Ethics and the Constitution.

In my retirement as an Environmental Engineer I occasionally teach a course in Environment Science at an University. One of the largest ones in the state. You really should sign up for the course. I spend a unit on discussing the scam. You will learn something that you don't know now.

Post a scan of the cover of the report you claim to possess.

It is up in the attic with other papers I kept when I retired.

I am not going to spend 45 mins to go up and find it and then post a copy of the cover sheet just to have you continue to have your head up your uneducated Moon Bat ass. Besides it was a controlled document and when I left Lockheed Lockheed Martin signed a non disclosure agreement to not release classified or controlled documents.

In additon to that, you have no intentions of ever pulling your head out of your Moon Bat ass. You are one of these uneducated Moon Bats that are simply too dumb to ask the right questions, question assumptions and to understand when you are being scammed by Environmental Wacko dipshits.

You continue to post these stupid graphs and statements and you have no idea that the root data for all that is mostly either fraudulent, cherry picked or intentionally misleading. You are gulible as hell. Typical for a Moon Bat.

Man made CO2 has not significantly contributed to the post glacier warming that we are going through today. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever. That is why we have caught the Environmental Wackos making up shit. If it was real then the data would be sound and no need to be fabricated.

If you really believe this silly horseshit then you need to do what would be the right thing to do. Sop using any fossil fuel energy or anything made or distributed by fossil fuel energy. That would include the computer that you are using to post your stupidity.

You don't even really believe it yourself and you sure are not going to suffer the consequences of only using "green" energy. Like most Environmental Wackos you are a fraud.