New Congressional Report on Fossil Fuel Industry Disinformation

[CrusaderFrank]

Exactly! It is very much like a cult. And you're balls deep in it.

LOL!

We ask for experiments, we ask for an explanation as to how CO2 suddenly went from lagging the temperature for 450,000 consecutive years to, somehow, magically driving, the climate and you calls us "Deniers"

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL!

We ask for experiments, we ask for an explanation as to how CO2 suddenly went from lagging the temperature for 450,000 consecutive years to, somehow, magically driving, the climate and you calls us "Deniers"

Their stupidity is even worse than you realize since most of the warm forcing of CO2 was set in stone a BILLION years ago which has been above 200 ppm about 99% of the time ever since thus negligible additional warm forcing shows up here is the chart that is self-explanatory:

LINK to a recently published science paper.

Since it has been over 180+ ppm for several 100 million years there has been little change in warm forcing input ever since as most of it was already generated in the first 100 ppm with quick decline afterwards which was done about a BILLION years ago thus CO2 warm forcing effects is negligible over 200 ppm levels.

And the Holocene doesn't support their delusions either:

NO CO2/temperature change relationship at all.

LINK

==================

It was rising since around 1700 long before CO2 started rising which begun in the 1880's thus the warming trend went on for around 185 years while CO2 didn't go up which was simply a recovery from the LIA phase.

AGW conjecture is a self defeating SCAM!

 

[Crick]

Exactly! It is very much like a cult. And you're balls deep in it.

A bunch of people who've been conned to make decisions NOT in their best interests or the interests of anyone but the con.

 

[Crick]

Their stupidity is even worse than you realize since most of the warm forcing of CO2 was set in stone a BILLION years ago which has been above 200 ppm about 99% of the time ever since thus negligible additional warm forcing shows up here is the chart that is self-explanatory:

View attachment 941543

LINK to a recently published science paper.

Since it has been over 180+ ppm for several 100 million years there has been little change in warm forcing input ever since as most of it was already generated in the first 100 ppm with quick decline afterwards which was done about a BILLION years ago thus CO2 warm forcing effects is negligible over 200 ppm levels.

And the Holocene doesn't support their delusions either:

View attachment 941548

NO CO2/temperature change relationship at all.

LINK

==================

It was rising since around 1700 long before CO2 started rising which begun in the 1880's thus the warming trend went on for around 185 years while CO2 didn't go up which was simply a recovery from the LIA phase.

AGW conjecture is a self defeating SCAM!

And when did homo sapiens appear? And human culture? Agriculture? Cities? Trade? And, in the distant past, what was the typical rate of change for CO2 and temperature and how does that compare with what we are seeing TODAY?

Where did you get the idea that conditions on this planet a hundred million years ago are automatically suitable for modern human existence, particularly when you are looking at recreating such conditions at many times the rate at which they appeared to the dinosaurs?

 

[Oddball]

And when did homo sapiens appear? And human culture? Agriculture? Cities? Trade? And, in the distant past, what was the typical rate of change for CO2 and temperature and how does that compare with what we are seeing TODAY?

Where did you get the idea that conditions on this planet a hundred million years ago are automatically suitable for modern human existence, particularly when you are looking at recreating such conditions at many times the rate at which they appeared to the dinosaurs?

CO2 that industrial man creates is magically different because.....REASONS!

 

[martybegan]

Exactly! It is very much like a cult. And you're balls deep in it.

This coming from someone who thinks the earth will be destroyed due to humans.

 

[Crick]

CO2 that industrial man creates is magically different because.....REASONS!

Because it is increasing atmospheric levels at many times the rate at which Milankovitch forcing has ever produced.

 

[Oddball]

Because it is increasing atmospheric levels at many times the rate at which Milankovitch forcing has ever produced.

There is no forcing...CO2 follows temperature....Always has.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climate science denial is its own industry. I

With a much lower budget than climate change hysteria.

 

[Crick]

There is no forcing...CO2 follows temperature....Always has.

So you're denying the greenhouse effect. Please explain, then, why the Earth isn't a snowball as the SB equation says it would be.

 

[Oddball]

So you're denying the greenhouse effect. Please explain, then, why the Earth isn't a snowball as the unaugmented SB equation says it would be.

I'm denying that you have any reproducible-on-demand, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence that CO2 is driving any temperature increase....Because you don't have any to that, and never have.

 

[Crick]

I'm denying that you have any reproducible-on-demand, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence that CO2 is driving any temperature increase....Because you don't have any to that, and never have.

If there is no greenhouse warming, the SB equation tells us that the Earth should be 59F or 33C degrees COLDER than it is. The world would be covered with ice. It's not. Please explain why.

 

[Oddball]

If there is no greenhouse warming, the SB equation tells us that the Earth should be 59F or 33C degrees COLDER than it is. The world would be covered with ice. It's not. Please explain why.

Providing evidence or any explanations isn't on me, that's on you warmers...You have neither jack nor shit, with respect to any solid provable science.

 

[Crick]

Providing evidence or any explanations isn't on me, that's on you warmers...You have neither jack nor shit, with respect to any solid provable science.

Coward. You can't answer the question and everyone here knows it. Anyone denying the greenhouse effect is an ignorant fool. That would be you.

 

[Oddball]

Coward. You can't answer the question and everyone here knows it. Anyone denying the greenhouse effect is an ignorant fool. That would be you.

It's not on me to prove anything, jackass....You have no physically verifiable science to prove your doomsaying Malthusian hypothesis, and you know it.

Alsoplustoo, calling people ignorant fools isn't science either.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And when did homo sapiens appear? And human culture? Agriculture? Cities? Trade? And, in the distant past, what was the typical rate of change for CO2 and temperature and how does that compare with what we are seeing TODAY?

Where did you get the idea that conditions on this planet a hundred million years ago are automatically suitable for modern human existence, particularly when you are looking at recreating such conditions at many times the rate at which they appeared to the dinosaurs?

HA HA HA, you completely misunderstood my post since it had NOTHING to do with Humans after all we were not around until the last 200,000 year or so I was talking about the CO2 warm forcing history of the last BILLION years which you completely missed.

You suck badly at debate since you don't debate at all..........

 

[Crick]

HA HA HA, you completely misunderstood my post since it had NOTHING to do with Humans after all we were not around until the last 200,000 year or so I was talking about the CO2 warm forcing history of the last BILLION years which you completely missed.

You suck badly at debate since you don't debate at all..........

You're a ******* idiot. What, exactly, are you trying to say? That the CO2 levels of a billion years ago are responsible for the warming we've seen over the last century and a half? CO2 has been at 280 +20 ppm for the last 3 million years. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, one-fourteen-thousandth that time span, we've pushed it up by 140 ppm.

 

[Oddball]

You're a ******* idiot. What, exactly, are you trying to say? That the CO2 levels of a billion years ago are responsible for the warming we've seen over the last century and a half? CO2 has been at 280 +20 ppm for the last 3 million years. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, one-fourteen-thousandth that time span, we've pushed it up by 140 ppm.

Still no repeatable and quantifiable scientific method to back up that tired claim.

Just the usual stale litany of post hoc and correlation fallacies, and ad hom.

 

[Crick]

Still no repeatable and quantifiable scientific method to back up that tired claim.

Just the usual stale litany of post hoc and correlation fallacies, and ad hom.

What tired claim would that be? The history of CO2 in the atmosphere? Those numbers are well and repeatedly established by multiple, peer-reviewed studies.

 

[Oddball]

What tired claim would that be? The history of CO2 in the atmosphere? Those numbers are well and repeatedly established by multiple, peer-reviewed studies.

Pal review isn't science, it's politics.

Where's the repeatable, verifiable, and quantifiable science, schmendrick?