Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

[Peach]

Nearly half in that poll you mean?

The Daily Caller is 'fair & balanced" Here is the real science:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And the term is 'climate change', not global warming; the changes bring extremes, hot/cold, wet/dry. If anyone doesn't believe the massive amount of chemicals spewed into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Age, hasn't had an effect on earth, they are dreaming. We do not know exactly what changes will occur in the long run, but pretending there have been no effects is............useless.

ipcc REALLY
who runs that?

In the link, here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Want more real science?

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

 

[Kosh]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

 

[Stephanie]

The Daily Caller is 'fair & balanced" Here is the real science:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And the term is 'climate change', not global warming; the changes bring extremes, hot/cold, wet/dry. If anyone doesn't believe the massive amount of chemicals spewed into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Age, hasn't had an effect on earth, they are dreaming. We do not know exactly what changes will occur in the long run, but pretending there have been no effects is............useless.

ipcc REALLY
who runs that?

In the link, here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Want more real science?

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

ah yes, INTERGOVEMENT panel
well by golly they wounldn't have an agenda, like seeking OUR MONIES
we aren't going to live with this globull government just yet
Obama's gone in two years and hopefully we can stop that train

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't get it.. Why are liberals in favor of huge electric bills? They claim to be for the poor man and yet a lot of idiotic policies they support, harm the poor more than anyone else.. It makes NO SENSE.

Heres what I dont get...Lets say its just me and you talking.

I tell you that I am concerned about Global Warming and the impact it will have on life, the environment, wildlife etc.

And you respond...."But how much is that going to cost?"

do you see the difference in priorities here?

 

[edthecynic]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Hey, the foremost authority on the global watming "hoax" claims that CO2 comes from water vapor, so more water vapor means more CO2.

May 29, 2012
RUSH: * People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

 

[mamooth]

Being a normal human who is not consumed with narcissism, I understand I am fallible. So when I see something that doesn't make sense to me at first, but which a great number of very smart and reliable people vouch for, I don't immediately conclude "HA! I DON'T UNDERSTAND, SO IT MUST ALL BE A BIG FRAUD!". Instead, I assume it is much more likely that I am the one who is mistaken, so I do more research on the topic.

Deniers? They possess that combination of stupidity and narcissism that makes it impossible for them to self-correct their blunders. If they don't understand something, it has to be due to a conspiracy. And it's impossible to disprove the conspiracy, since all counter-evidence is instantly defined as part of the conspiracy.

 

[Freewill]

Being a normal human who is not consumed with narcissism, I understand I am fallible. So when I see something that doesn't make sense to me at first, but which a great number of very smart and reliable people vouch for, I don't immediately conclude "HA! I DON'T UNDERSTAND, SO IT MUST ALL BE A BIG FRAUD!". Instead, I assume it is much more likely that I am the one who is mistaken, so I do more research on the topic.

Deniers? They possess that combination of stupidity and narcissism that makes it impossible for them to self-correct their blunders. If they don't understand something, it has to be due to a conspiracy. And it's impossible to disprove the conspiracy, since all counter-evidence is instantly defined as part of the conspiracy.

Well where did you do you research and what did you conclude? Obviously on conclusion you made is that if you make the asinine comparison to holocaust denier and those who question GW that makes you seem smarter. I would say in that case your research lead you to the very opposite conclusion.

I do exactly what you said you do. I lived through the 70s and read all the gloom and doom books. I was concerned I was gong to get involved. Then one guy I was talking to told me "we will take care of it." And you know he was right the books were wrong. Did you know we ran out of oil 20 years ago? Did you know that the Earth can not support a population much less then what we have today? So yeah I was fooled, once. Won't happen again.

First of all, I have looked and looked and not once have I found out where the temperature should be, only that it should be cooler. I like it warmer.

Second, the models are all wrong and they were based on the data so something is wrong.

Third, CO2 lags temperature both up and down, how does that even happen if CO2 drives temperature?

Fourth, Al Gore is getting rich pushing his stuff. It would be one thing if he was not being altruistic but no, he is profiting big time so I question his motivation.

BTW

Being a normal human who is not consumed with narcissism,

You forgot to mention how humble you are.

 

[Freewill]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Hey, the foremost authority on the global watming "hoax" claims that CO2 comes from water vapor, so more water vapor means more CO2.

May 29, 2012
RUSH: * People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

Me thinks you read it wrongly, I didn't not see where it was said water vapor causes co2. What I read was correct, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas. I often wonder if the cooling towers putting massive amounts of water vapor into the air has something to do with warmer temperatures, if that is the case.

 

[edthecynic]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Hey, the foremost authority on the global watming "hoax" claims that CO2 comes from water vapor, so more water vapor means more CO2.

May 29, 2012
RUSH: * People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

Me thinks you read it wrongly, I didn't not see where it was said water vapor causes co2. What I read was correct, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas. I often wonder if the cooling towers putting massive amounts of water vapor into the air has something to do with warmer temperatures, if that is the case.

But how much water vapor can accumulate in the atmosphere before falling as precipitation? As the temperature rises the atmosphere can hold more water, but that means temperature leads water vapor. Nope it does not seem like water vapor is doing the forcing.

 

[Political Junky]

Lets see, frikken POLL after POLL has shown

this "gloBULL warming aka Climate change" is the farthest thing on the American voters minds

yet this is what we get, called names, claim stupid is a virtue they cling to over it, blah blah blah

Polls don't disprove science.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

Humans are responsible for all the Co2 between 300 and 400 ppm. That's 25% of the Co2 in the air. We know this from multiple lines of evidence. Not only is the total amount of fossil fuels burned since the beginning of the industrial age more than enough to account for the increase - we can detect the presence of fossil fuel produced CO2 in the air through its isotopic ratios.

This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I don't get it.. Why are liberals in favor of huge electric bills? They claim to be for the poor man and yet a lot of idiotic policies they support, harm the poor more than anyone else.. It makes NO SENSE.

Heres what I dont get...Lets say its just me and you talking.

I tell you that I am concerned about Global Warming and the impact it will have on life, the environment, wildlife etc.

And you respond...."But how much is that going to cost?"

do you see the difference in priorities here?

This may surprise you and piss off my conservative friends, but I am a member of PETA.. have been for two years now. I'm a HUGE supporter of animal rights, to the extreme.. very very left of center. The difference? It's a FACT animals are discarded, abused, treated inhumanely on a daily basis.. Global warming proof?? NONE that sways me.. NONE.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Being a normal human who is not consumed with narcissism, I understand I am fallible. So when I see something that doesn't make sense to me at first, but which a great number of very smart and reliable people vouch for, I don't immediately conclude "HA! I DON'T UNDERSTAND, SO IT MUST ALL BE A BIG FRAUD!". Instead, I assume it is much more likely that I am the one who is mistaken, so I do more research on the topic.

Deniers? They possess that combination of stupidity and narcissism that makes it impossible for them to self-correct their blunders. If they don't understand something, it has to be due to a conspiracy. And it's impossible to disprove the conspiracy, since all counter-evidence is instantly defined as part of the conspiracy.

the smart people in the AGWcult know they're scamming the public but are making a fortune in the process. The rest of the Cult is just getting pumped and dumped

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

Humans are responsible for all the Co2 between 300 and 400 ppm. That's 25% of the Co2 in the air. We know this from multiple lines of evidence. Not only is the total amount of fossil fuels burned since the beginning of the industrial age more than enough to account for the increase - we can detect the presence of fossil fuel produced CO2 in the air through its isotopic ratios.

This is pretty basic stuff.

So you should have no problem showing us a lab experiment that shows a 100ppm increase in CO2 raising temperature from 2-6 degrees right?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Ernie S.]

k

That may be true, but almost all of these articles are not subject to peer review, and most of them are written by the same half a dozen or so people.


I agree! Why not? Go ahead an tell us the last time global temperatures were 1.3 degrees Centigrade higher than they are now. I'd love to know!

Un true. But relax. I'm not going to pay for access to Schnitt's archives

Why would you have to? Are you telling me a guy names Schnitt owns the copyrights to every single anti-AGW paper in existence?

He has a collection of 6 or 700. I really don't find you worth the effort to compile my own list.

 

[Ernie S.]

And as to the last question: I have no idea. Reliable temperature records that could give us a clear and reliable average global temperature only go back at best 100 years. We do know that temperatures have varied a lot in the last, say 1,000 years, but we can't reliably tell by how much.

Best guess with computer models and analysis of ice cores, etc. is that average global temperature rose about .09 degrees from 0 AD through 1,000 AD and about 0.5 degrees since.

When was the last time it was 1.3 C warmer than now?

Last July. Who cares? Really I can start a chart at some arbitrary number and blow your chart out of the water.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

Humans are responsible for all the Co2 between 300 and 400 ppm. That's 25% of the Co2 in the air. We know this from multiple lines of evidence. Not only is the total amount of fossil fuels burned since the beginning of the industrial age more than enough to account for the increase - we can detect the presence of fossil fuel produced CO2 in the air through its isotopic ratios.

This is pretty basic stuff.

So you should have no problem showing us a lab experiment that shows a 100ppm increase in CO2 raising temperature from 2-6 degrees right?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Not really. The mean free path of IR radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is about ~25 m. So you'd need a lab set up >> 25 meters in length.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And as to the last question: I have no idea. Reliable temperature records that could give us a clear and reliable average global temperature only go back at best 100 years. We do know that temperatures have varied a lot in the last, say 1,000 years, but we can't reliably tell by how much.

Best guess with computer models and analysis of ice cores, etc. is that average global temperature rose about .09 degrees from 0 AD through 1,000 AD and about 0.5 degrees since.

When was the last time it was 1.3 C warmer than now?

Last July. Who cares?

Really I can start a chart at some arbitrary number and blow your chart out of the water.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I really don't find you worth the effort to compile my own list.

Whether or not you actually take the time to investigate things for yourself is of no difference to me. If you want to be a complete blubbering idiot and believe whatever someone on the radio tells you without question and certainly without any effort on your part, that's your right to do so.

 

[Ernie S.]

The concept of radiative forcing is one of the most fundamental concepts of climate science. The fact you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of this very basic concept is evidence that causes me to believe you are a complete hack, totally uninterested in the truth.

The radiative forcing of CO2 can be directly computed from its absorption cross section. Its no more deceitful that using the laws of gravity to calculate how long it will take a rock to fall.

The Vostock Ice Cores called, they said you got it wrong over a 600,000 year period. You've been played

You don't measure the absorption cross section of CO2 for infrared radiation by taking an ice core!

You are seriously the most mentally deficient person I have ever met. Is someone typing for you? Its amazing to me you can even breathe on your own.

Oh yeah Ice cores... you can apply spectra to a computer model and tell right away what the average global temperature was in any given year....

WHO designed THAT computer model? The same guy who said the ocean was going to be lapping at my front door by now?