Proof of AGW fraud

[Lesh]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

 

[jc456]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.

 

[Lesh]

well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.

Do you go out of your way to post stupid shit like that or are you just that stupid...

 

[Frannie]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Hey dumbass co2 has nothing to do with the temp increases that are not happening

Try screwing in your bulb

 

[jc456]

well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.

Do you go out of your way to post stupid shit like that or are you just that stupid...

well you were the subject

 

[jc456]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Hey dumbass co2 has nothing to do with the temp increases that are not happening

Try screwing in your bulb

it takes too many pollocks.

 

[Wuwei]

Answer what? You're fallacy.

Speaking of fallacy have you tried figuring out how to get around you fallacy of the second law?

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That's absurd. So it is obvious that not just any energy is allowed in that statement. You have to reinterpret it.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Ok so what's the problem? Surley you don't want us to run around half naked, live in Mudd huts and hunt buffalo...



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.

Do you go out of your way to post stupid shit like that or are you just that stupid...

So think potsie think


..

 

[SSDD]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?

 

[SSDD]

Answer what? You're fallacy.

Speaking of fallacy have you tried figuring out how to get around you fallacy of the second law?

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That's absurd. So it is obvious that not just any energy is allowed in that statement. You have to reinterpret it.

.

I didn't write the second law...I just accept it without feeling the need to modify it in any way..and

And the second law predicts that you would get damned cold if you stood under a water fall...your body would readily lose heat to the colder water leaving you shivering...the water would not make you warmer in any way which is precisely what you believe would happen...you clearly don't have the first clue with regard to energy flow...go learn something and come back when you do.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?

He will say you're not a scientist and he only believes scientist or clowns..

 

[SSDD]

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?

He will say you're not a scientist and he only believes scientist or clowns..


View attachment 266231

He doesn't seem to be able to provide any science to support his position...that being the case, he doesn't seem to believe scientists either...it would appear that he only believes the clowns in the media, the clowns in environmental organizations, and the clowns in government pushing pseudoscience...

 

[Wuwei]

Answer what? You're fallacy.

Speaking of fallacy have you tried figuring out how to get around you fallacy of the second law?

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That's absurd. So it is obvious that not just any energy is allowed in that statement. You have to reinterpret it.

I didn't write the second law...I just accept it without feeling the need to modify it in any way..and

And the second law predicts that you would get damned cold if you stood under a water fall...your body would readily lose heat to the colder water leaving you shivering...the water would not make you warmer in any way which is precisely what you believe would happen...you clearly don't have the first clue with regard to energy flow...go learn something and come back when you do.

So you are now saying,
Energy can flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I agree as long as it is something like a waterfall or in radiation exchange. But if the energy is heat then definitely,
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

.

 

[Lesh]

Answer what? You're fallacy.

Speaking of fallacy have you tried figuring out how to get around you fallacy of the second law?

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That's absurd. So it is obvious that not just any energy is allowed in that statement. You have to reinterpret it.

I didn't write the second law...I just accept it without feeling the need to modify it in any way..and

And the second law predicts that you would get damned cold if you stood under a water fall...your body would readily lose heat to the colder water leaving you shivering...the water would not make you warmer in any way which is precisely what you believe would happen...you clearly don't have the first clue with regard to energy flow...go learn something and come back when you do.

So you are now saying,
Energy can flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I agree as long as it is something like a waterfall or in radiation exchange. But if the energy is heat then definitely,
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

.

WTF are you talking about.

Spontaneous? Molecules do not stop and start. They are always moving and warmer ones move faster.

 

[Wuwei]

WTF are you talking about.

Spontaneous? Molecules do not stop and start. They are always moving and warmer ones move faster.

We are talking about a misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics that SSDD has made for many years. He doesn't understand what the physics definition of spontaneous means. He made up his own definition. It's a long story.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
Careful. Tough questions, fellas!

Wait you are comparing the tobacco industry with fossil fuel?

So a few questions for you

1. Where was the government scientists and what were they doing?

2. Have fossil fuel spent billions on R and D in green energy since the 1970s?

Yes or No?

3. Have the bogey men Koch brothers and fossil fuel admits man contributes?

Yes or No?

4. Does the AGW cult funding drawf fossil fuel special interest world wide?

Yes or no?

5. Would 200 million Americans would of drove these in the 1970s, if they knew

Yes or no?



6. Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect.. Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?

.

 

[Grumblenuts]

1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
2) Your questions are nearly all incoherent, but I'll attempt a straight up response as soon as you do.
3) "Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect.. Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?" -
You've just "compar[ed] the tobacco industry with fossil fuel" - Horrors!
Plus sounds like you agree that "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" - Fine, unintentional admission!

 

[Wyatt earp]

1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
2) Your questions are nearly all incoherent, but I'll attempt a straight up response as soon as you do.
3) "Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect.. Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?" -
You've just "compar[ed] the tobacco industry with fossil fuel" - Horrors!
Plus sounds like you agree that "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" - Fine, unintentional admission!

Deflect much?


I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .



It wouldn't of mattered one bit if we knew man was contributing, no one would of drove those Electric cars.



.

.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..