New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

[westwall]

Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?

Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:

1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

You got a lot of nerve man.

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

Scientific Method? What Scientific Method? Who needs that!

 

[wirebender]

You have been shown the documentation for months.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I have read every word of that idiot article rocks and have followed the links as well just to see if there is anything there that constitutes any sort of proof that the greenhouse effect, or AGW are, in fact, reality and it just isn't there.

I have asked you repeatedly to point to whichever part you believe constitutes proof of whatever topic you are discussing at any given time as you seem to link to it when proof of several different types is asked for.

Which part of that do you believe documents proof of CO2's heat trapping properties? I can tell you which part...no part. There is no documentation of CO2's heat trapping properties or links to any such documentation of the properties. That idiot link is nothing more than scripture rocks. It doesn't constitute proof of anything. It is dogma and any claims made on it are based on assumptions with no proof to support them.

If you believe there is proof there for heat trapping properties of CO2, where is it. Of course we all know, that you won't point to any such proof because you clearly don't understand what is being said on the page and it is more than obvious that you aren't able to differentiate between corelation and causation.

I am laughing at you rocks. Pointing to scripture when proof is asked for.

 

[wirebender]

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.[/QUOTE]

That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!![/QUOTE]

The first flaw knoradv is your assumption that the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other GHG's is well documented. It is not. There is no observed evidence that CO2 has any capacity to absorb and retain heat. It simply doesn't happen. Everyting that is built upon such a grossly inaccurate foundation crumbles.

Show me hard, observable, repeatable, experimental proof that CO2 can absorb and retain heat.

Maybe you don't understand exactly what a syllogism is. Here:

syllogism - noun - 1. Logic . an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”

Your conclusion is not supported by one premis, much less two. Certainly heat trapping properties of CO2 are not well documented, since they do not exist and the fact that CO2 has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution is proof of nothing other than that CO2 has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution; and even that is questionable if you go back to the actual beginnings of the industrial revolution. Your conclusion is based on the fact that CO2 and temperature move in rough unison and even that conclusion fails to recognize that increased atmospheric CO2 follows increased temperatures suggesting that increased CO2 is a result, not a cause.

Here have a look at atmospheric CO2 readings since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Note the readings above 470ppm in the late 1820's and the readings above 400 in the 1930's to the late 1940's.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/CO2databaserev3.pdf

Another source:

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/180_years_of_chemical_CO2_measurements.pdf

No part of your "logical syllogism" is supported by anthing other than your faith konradv.

Here are a couple of other points to ponder konradv, if you ever ponder at all that is. CO2 absorbs and emits only a small wavelength of the total IR spectrum. That means that a CO2 molecule can never warm up to the temperature of the radiation source. And one other thing, if you are hot konradv, don't you seek out a heat absorber to cool you off? CO2 absorbs and emits radiation therefore it serves to cool, not warm.

 

[konradv]

WEsty, you thanked him for a post that contained deliberate falsehoods?!?! If you're going to accept "Certainly heat trapping properties of CO2 are not well documented, since they do not exist", you've lost most of your credibility.

 

[Si modo]

WEsty, you thanked him for a post that contained deliberate falsehoods?!?! If you're going to accept "Certainly heat trapping properties of CO2 are not well documented, since they do not exist", you've lost most of your credibility.

Actually, he is thanking him for YET AGAIN pointing out to you that there is no logic to equating correlation to causation.

 

[signelect]

We let Al and his buddies sell us a pile of stuff and the media bought it, no surprise here, and now we pay the price. Al is very wealthy today as a result. Never ask a man for his opinion when he stands to profit from the answer. Just a simple truth.

 

[Conservative]

I love how the AGW believers continually whine that 'there is scientific consensus', and point to various studies they consider credible and accurate and unbiased... but when AGW deniers cite studies showing that prove their position, those studies are all flawed, biased, or 'just have an agenda'.

I wasn't aware 'truth in science' is an 'agenda'.

 

[saveliberty]

WEsty, you thanked him for a post that contained deliberate falsehoods?!?! If you're going to accept "Certainly heat trapping properties of CO2 are not well documented, since they do not exist", you've lost most of your credibility.

Any credibility he has lost is only in your mind and whatever that is, is far less than you ever had.

 

[skookerasbil]

I said more than 10 years ago that this period of the early 2000's would be looked back upon someday as nothing more than a spoof.........an engineered scam by the genuis' enamoured with wealth redistribution.
Its never been about science...........( although there are lots of mental cases out there who still think its about science!!!)

 

[daveman]

I love how the AGW believers continually whine that 'there is scientific consensus', and point to various studies they consider credible and accurate and unbiased... but when AGW deniers cite studies showing that prove their position, those studies are all flawed, biased, or 'just have an agenda'.

I wasn't aware 'truth in science' is an 'agenda'.

Truth in real science doesn't have an agenda.

Truth in leftist science does.