Proof of AGW fraud

[Wyatt earp]

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

how did they do that?

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

That's what you got out of it, excess?


It's just showing a snap shot cartoon of where it's coming from at that time and place.


.

 

[RealDave]

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

You are fun to play with.... God don't you Know how to research something instead of just spout opinions?

The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

Your go to expert is guy who calls himself Chiefio.

I'll stick with NASA.


I'm waiting for your list of events/sources for this excess co2 that has been put into the atmosphere. Real scientists attribute nearly all of it yo man made emissions.

But you stick with Chiefio.

Ok let's use NASA's C02 satellite.

See all the C02 in the southern hemisphere from deforestation?


View attachment 266319

So, you just decided it was from deforestation???

Wouldn't the concentration of CO2 be lower over the rain forest than over, say, industrialized areas?

Or did you just make that up like most of your bullshit.

 

[RealDave]

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

how did they do that?

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

That's what you got out of it, excess?


It's just showing a snap shot cartoon of where it's coming from at that time and place.


.

So you don't know what, beside man made emissions, caused the CO2 levels to go up.

 

[SSDD]

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"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

All liberal plans invariably hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt.

More short sighted bullshit.

So, you are saying that if we do nothing on AGW, it will not hit the poorest the hardest?

Food & water will increase. Who will that hurt, jackass.

I am still waiting for some actual evidence that we are having an effect on the global climate...you people talk about it as if it were proven. The fact is that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...

That would be the absolute minimum evidence required if we were talking about actual science...but since we are talking about pseudoscience, apparently your side thinks talk of consensus equals actual evidence of something...

And as long as we are talking about the changing climate, can you tell me what the optimum temperature is for life on this planet? Is it warmer than the present? Colder than the present? What evidence do you have that would support whatever temperature you name?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

"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"

People were calling cigarettes "coffin nails" in the 1890s.
The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health led Congress to require a warning on packs in the 1960s.
No one believed cigarettes were harmless.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

All liberal plans invariably hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt.

More short sighted bullshit.

So, you are saying that if we do nothing on AGW, it will not hit the poorest the hardest?

Food & water will increase. Who will that hurt, jackass.

Why would food and water increase? More land to grow stuff on.

 

[SSDD]

I get it. You have no logic. You really have no knowledge about much of anything.

I have actual science...you on the other hand apparently have tea leaves, phrenology, and sheep knuckles...

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published scientific papers which state clearly that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and barely measurable...you on the other hand have thus far, only provided your opinion.

We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.

Of course we know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere..but we also know that the amount in the atmosphere varies quite a lot from year to year..in fact, it varies by an amount greater than all the CO2 we produce. Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities...any real science which has looked seriously at all the natural sources and causes for natural variation from year to year? My bet is the answer to that is no...you have opinions and little else.

Typical warmer...you love to talk about what we "know" but can't seem to produce any actual science that supports what you think we "know"

Are you just stupid?

Clearly not...I am the one producing actual science to support my position..you are the one who has apparently swallowed pseudoscience, media bias, and opinion as if it were actually science...that is stupid...

 

[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!

"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"

People were calling cigarettes "coffin nails" in the 1890s.
The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health led Congress to require a warning on packs in the 1960s.
No one believed cigarettes were harmless.

Exactly, according to one person on USMB today they needed scientist to tell them drinking to much saltwater is dangerous.


.

 

[SSDD]

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?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

You don't seem to realize that we are a minor producer of CO2 on this earth...termites alone produce more CO2 than we do by a long shot...the fact that CO2 changes from year to hear is only evidence that it changes...it is not evidence of the cause of the change..do you have any actual science that seriously looks at all the natural sources of CO2, and the natural sinks and concludes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to our activities...I would be interested in seeing it if you do.

My bet is that you don't, and that you have never really looked at any science regarding natural sources of CO2, or the amount they vary from year to year...my bet is that you just believe we are responsible for the increase in CO2...and have seen nothing like actual evidence to support the belief...I also bet that you think the emperor's new clothes are simply fabulous..since you appear to be prone to believe in things whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.

 

[SSDD]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far. I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it. You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?

CO2 concentration is up.

So what? Prior to the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting from, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 1000ppm...more than double the present amount...cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans so during the ice age, a great deal of CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...as they warm, they outgas a great deal of CO2... You seem to think that just because the CO2 concentration is up, that we are the ones who are causing it...lets see some actual science which says so...lets see some actual scientific research which carefully examines all the natural sources of CO2 and the natural variation from year to year and concludes that we are responsible for the increase...I have provided 7 papers which say that we are not responsible and have never seen the first actual published scientific paper that says that we are responsible.

List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.

I have already provided you with several...the fact is that we don't know enough about the natural sources at this time to make any real claims about the true human percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere...for example, until recently, science said that volcanoes were a small source of CO2...that is because they were measuring the CO2 output form 6 or 8 active volcanoes on land that were known to be active in any given year...recently, however, science has acknowledged that they may have "grossly" underestimated the amount of CO2 emitting from volcanoes because they had not been considering the literally hundreds of thousands of under sea volcanoes and vents producing untold volumes of CO2.

Scientists can estimate these things. The can, really.

Yeah...I know...I provided you with 7 papers which carefully examined the amount of CO2 humans produce relative to the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and the changes form year to year and they found that the amount of CO2 that we produce is the next thing to undetectable in the greater atmosphere...do you have any actual scientific papers which examine all the known factors and find differently? My bet is that you don't..you are working from a position of faith and assumption rather than from any actual scientific research.

 

[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?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

No correlation between C02 and warming has been found so far, again you don't want to acknowledge for example Mars atmosphere is made up of like 95% C02

Mars is a completely different animal. You might note that there is no life there.

You're just flailing

Life? Who needs life on Mars? The real question is what are their current oil reserves and can we beat them damned Rooskies to it?!

Wait, what? Whoever wrote "No correlation between C02 and warming has been found so far" simply must be from Mars!

The only real correlation that has been found...and this according even to the paper you provided was a that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases...

Increased CO2 is a result of increased temperarue...not the cause of increased temperature.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

 

[SSDD]

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

Really? We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2...how might we measure the amount of CO2 being produced by organic decay in any given year? We know that the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean...how might we determine whether or not the amount of CO2 from the ocean has increased or decreased in any given year? We now know that we have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by undersea volcanoes...the number of undersea vents and volcanoes, according to science is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a million...so which is it? A few hundred thousand or more than a million?...and how might we determine how much is actually being emitted? And how might we determine how much that amount varies from year to year?

Clearly you don't have a clue, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we might calculate any of the above with anything like a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

[SSDD]

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

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

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

Strawman. Look, we both know that a low temperature waterfall can flow toward a higher temperature body. You are being a troll when you are saying I think otherwise. Can't you understand the issue???

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

You keep avoiding telling my why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does.

You can't and you are making up lies.

.

So now you are going to try to say that because you can throw cold water on hot coals that that proves that energy moves from cold to warm? You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer...this has all been explained to you in a previous incarnation of your tedious logical failure...refer to the time you tried to claim that blowing cold air molecules against a warm wall was proof of energy radiating from cold to warm...what an idiot...

 

[SSDD]

And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?

Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..

I did not make up this definition, and I don't feel the need to modify it in any way since it jibes perfectly with my understanding of energy movement...you on the other hand are unable to accept the statement as is and must modify the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake in order to make it jibe with what you believe.

It truly must suck to be such a liar...

Now the very caustic troll comes out. You are the liar. Let's try it again, and can you think more deeply this time without bursting into a feigned tirade.

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

You keep avoiding telling me why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does when it hits your head.

Let me tell you. The answer it is at the hyperphysics site under "Refrigerator". You have seen this before.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Now try to keep calm and think about it.

.

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you come up with a whole new level of stupid...you can drop an ice cube on the hot sidewalk...but the ice cube doesn't make the sidewalk warmer...because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot sidewalk to the cold ice cube...you just get more and more stupid all the time...

 

[SSDD]

So, you just decided it was from deforestation???

Wouldn't the concentration of CO2 be lower over the rain forest than over, say, industrialized areas?

Why would you think that... decay of organic material is a far greater source of CO2 in the atmosphere than all of human industry....and there is a great deal of organic decay going on in the equatorial regions...it stands to reason that there would be more CO2 over the part of the world with the greatest amount of organic decay happening.

Or did you just make that up like most of your bullshit.

It is clear that you are the one just making it up as you go. You obviously haven't taken the time required to even familiarize yourself with how much CO2 is natural vs how much CO2 is man made. Here, is a little video that might help you put it into something like real context...

 

[SSDD]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

 

[BlindBoo]

We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2

Termites, and humans, are part of the natural carbon cycle. The natural variation in the concentration of CO2 is like a sine wave graph that correlates to the seasons. Since we started releasing carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years in the last 150 years or so, the graph has been increasing.

Does the mean we're going to cancel the next Ice age?

I seriously doubt it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

Those natural sources didn't start producing extra CO2 beginning 150 years ago. I mean those volcanoes have been under the oceans a long time.

 

[captkaos]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.

2) Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?

You are aware that Scientists DID in fact write emails about LYING to the public about supposed man made global warming? That those emails exist and are real?

You are aware that the Hockey Stick graph was proven to be false it ignored several major events and had false misleading information in it? That everyone with half a brain agrees that it is discredited and false?

You are aware that AL Gore has been caught lying, misleading and falsifying information on global warming? That he uses resources of something like 30 people all by himself?

" IF" I were a scientist who's income was dependent on donations from people who wanted me to profess "A Global Emergency" or be replaced by someone who would, I think the answers and research could be bent to keep my finances in order! sure. ( "They" said " Michael Corleone did this and Michael Corleone said that" so I said yeah" "But it was all lies" ! Get it. No proof it's just not a cycle the Earth has gone through for "BILLIONS OF YEARS" Idiots. Mankind is an eye blink in the earths history. Dinosaurs were around for 300 million years, we won't be that fortunate. So we' are obviously dumber than dinosaurs just sayin"