My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
No media needs to touch science to make it fraudulent. It has been corrupted from the inside for decades.... decades.

1. Leftists dominate academia. They shout down all dissent. Silence it. Their way or shut the hell up, including science.

Take evolution please.

Take climate change please.

2. I shall repeat fraudulent science I have posted elsewhere, beginning with "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This LIE was disproven in court 150 years ago and yet biology books have continued to parrot this lie through to the 21st Century.

3. The PRETENSE that science depends on "consensus" is lunacy. Facts are independent of "consensus." As a famous climatologist said in his book discounting global warming, "Galileo was once the only person on earth who believed the earth revolved around the sun but he was right!"

4. Today, every science lab in the world calls their charts "The periodic table of the elements."
There is NOTHING "periodic" about the table. It is the elements which are periodic. It should be called "the table of periodic elements," but it is not. We do not say "the black man's eye," we say "the man's black eye."

5. Then there is the contemporary nonsense of wearing masks with holes ten times the size of the Covid 19 virus and the compound nonsense of jabbing people with RNA modifiers that have killed and maimed. This craziness is being mandated! By the Left, of course. The tyrannical, pompous, condescending know-it-all Left that doesn't know a man from a woman. How do they go to the bathroom, M or W?
Fraud
Tell us again why the periodic table is incorrectly named, so we can all have a good laugh.
 
So, you’re smarter then (sic) every university in the world......amazing.

I had to click on the link to open your inane remark, since you have long been on my
Ignore List for subtracting from every discussion in all you write.

Stupidity such as yours is not funny. Nobody is laughing at it.
It's pathetic. It's deadly. It ruins millions of lives.

The Unabomber was a genius and mathematics professor at UC Berkeley.

You're a lot like him - far left, arrogant, condescending.
 
The politically Left management at Google has removed my Ecohypocrites.blogspot.com website.

Like former Twitter, like Amazon, like New York Times, FBI, CIA, they hate facts and truth and
want to tell you how to think.
That any site created by you would contain any facts or any truth is exceedingly difficult to swallow.
 
That any site created by you would contain any facts or any truth is exceedingly difficult to swallow.
so you are a censorship guy!!!! look at you trying to silence science. Don't call yourself science of any kind with that feeling.
 
What about the table. You still need to know the difference between H2O and CO2
Ha ha
Now you’re speaking for a fraud who is too chicken shit to speak for himself. I know the difference and I know what role each plays in global warming. You don’t and neither does fraud engineer because you’re illiterates.
 
Ha ha
Now you’re speaking for a fraud who is too chicken shit to speak for himself. I know the difference and I know what role each plays in global warming. You don’t and neither does fraud engineer because you’re illiterates.
naw, you ain't got a fking clue dude. scrambling word salads is all you got.
 
naw, you ain't got a fking clue dude. scrambling word salads is all you got.
To an illiterate like you, everything looks like a word salad.
Better check with king fraud who hides and can’t speak for himself.
 
To an illiterate like you, everything looks like a word salad.
material from you is always a word salad. you go left, then right, then up and then down, then zig zag and always deflect from the conversation. Word salad.

I'll prove it here, name what all these institutions agree on for consensus. What was reproducible?
 
material from you is always a word salad. you go left, then right, then up and then down, then zig zag and always deflect from the conversation. Word salad.

I'll prove it here, name what all these institutions agree on for consensus. What was reproducible?
Easy, you be specific about AGW you disagree with and I’ll point you to a source that EVERYONE of the 25k other institutions are in general agreement with.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top