What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
56,502
Reaction score
43,877
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
indeed, like CO2 choosing selective days to create heat in only specific areas. Cracks me up. Can't argue with bricks, so have fun throwing at them.
It is going to be hot as hell in the US this week because of a high pressure area over most of the country.

Meanwhile last week Australia had record cold across most of the country.

AGW my ass!
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
56,502
Reaction score
43,877
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
indeed, like CO2 choosing selective days to create heat in only specific areas. Cracks me up. Can't argue with bricks, so have fun throwing at them.
They ignore data that shows that CO2 levels lag temperature change.

They ignore the fact that the data shows that at some times when the earth was cooler CO2 levels were higher and the earth was warmer when the CO2 levels were lower.

They don't understand than prior to WWII climate data in the Southern hemisphere and a large part of Asia was very sparsely recorded. In addition, most temperature readings were made in big cities in Europe and America. Very few in rural areas. So any of their "hottest year on record" is bullshit because the record is very limited.

They ignore the fact that satellite data is not reliable because the sensors are only calibrated to +/- 4 F while they claim .5 F changes in the ocean's temperature.

Also, none of their silly ass predictions ever come true.

They are a joke.
 

Likkmee

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16,905
Reaction score
6,192
Points
310
Location
Second World
Bingo !!! That's an "existential threat" to this country. Biggest polluter is USUALLY the Federal govt. Been harping on that for years and little has been done.

But I doubt that commercial nuclear is much of the SAME kind of threat. At Hanford and Savanah River and Oakridge -- most of the waste was just packed into 55Gal drums and left to rot. There's a DIFF between the waste from REFINING fissile materials for bombs and the solid fuel used for power plants. HOWEVER -- there SHOULD BE a National Repository as was PROMISED 50 years ago so that those nuclear fuel rods stored on site in pools dont' suddenly get exposed. OR -- we do what the French have done and recycle some and put the remainder into lead glass casings to neutralize them for eons.

The amount of nuclear fuel needed to run the average American house is about 1.5 oz. That's about the size of an AA battery. There IS NO fuel with LESS waste and pollution. We can handle THAT -- if anyone thinks we can handle toxic battery waste from EVehicles and "grid scale storage" warehouses of batteries to make solar/wind LESS flaky.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,851
Reaction score
2,018
Points
198
They ignore data that shows that CO2 levels lag temperature change.

They ignore the fact that the data shows that at some times when the earth was cooler CO2 levels were higher and the earth was warmer when the CO2 levels were lower.

They don't understand than prior to WWII climate data in the Southern hemisphere and a large part of Asia was very sparsely recorded. In addition, most temperature readings were made in big cities in Europe and America. Very few in rural areas. So any of their "hottest year on record" is bullshit because the record is very limited.

They ignore the fact that satellite data is not reliable because the sensors are only calibrated to +/- 4 F while they claim .5 F changes in the ocean's temperature.

Also, none of their silly ass predictions ever come true.

They are a joke.
So, you’re smarter then every university in the world......amazing.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,070
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
They ignore data that shows that CO2 levels lag temperature change.
That point is not ignored and no mainstream science has ever given you that impression. The reason the historical record shows CO2 levels lagging temperature is because unlike dissolving sugar in your iced tea, increasing temperatures in a liquid DECREASES its ability to dissolve gases. Thus as the Earth's temperature increases, say from changes in orbital position, CO2 and other gases dissolved in the Earth's oceans and other waters comes out of solution and into the atmosphere. This is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCESS from the greenhouse effect which is driving global warming.

They ignore the fact that the data shows that at some times when the earth was cooler CO2 levels were higher and the earth was warmer when the CO2 levels were lower.
If you've been here often enough you should have seen a graph similar to this one from the EPA. These are radiative forcing factors:
1664629732875.png

Notice that some of the material entries have blue bars. These are radiative factors that result in the cooling of the planet. And, of course, when orbital mechanics causes the energy from the sun to decline, that tiny red bar, second from the bottom, can also become blue and quite potent. So, nothing is being ignored.

You also need to rid yourself of the idea that nothing can happen that hasn't happened before, particularly when you're discussing things caused by humans, who weren't here and weren't producing gigatonnes of greenhouse gases in the distant past.

They don't understand than prior to WWII climate data in the Southern hemisphere and a large part of Asia was very sparsely recorded. In addition, most temperature readings were made in big cities in Europe and America. Very few in rural areas. So any of their "hottest year on record" is bullshit because the record is very limited.

I am quite certain they understand it quite fully. It is they whose jobs are dealing with temperature records. You act as if they are blithering idiots. They are not. And the term "on record" precludes comparisons to unrecorded domains in space or time.

They ignore the fact that satellite data is not reliable because the sensors are only calibrated to +/- 4 F while they claim .5 F changes in the ocean's temperature.

The same argument applies here. They know this stuff better than you and I. There have been errors with satellite data, most famously those made by Roy Spencer and John Christy, which I might suggest YOU are ignoring as their error went in the other direction.

Also, none of their silly ass predictions ever come true.

They are a joke.

Their "silly ass projections" have been quite accurate. How accurate have been the repeated denier claims that global warming will soon end and the world will begin cooling? How accurate have been the claims that the observed warming is just some sort of 'SuperBall' rebound from the Little Ice Age? How accurate have been the denier claims that this warming is simply part of an interglacial cycle that, historically, is actually moving in the opposite direction?

Not very.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top