The Four Main Fails of AGW

[jc456]

No, you're just stupid and dishonest. That tends to be the answer to every stupid and dishonest question you ask

If a probe heats to 70 degrees, how does it emit hotter than 70 degrees? Please we’re all waiting.

 

[mamooth]

5. The principal scientists have been caught red handed fabricating and cherry picking data.

Outright projection on your part. All of the fraud, which is constant and pervasive, is coming from your side. That big lie of yours was one example.

Your constant ongoing fraud is one reason why nobody pays any attention to your cult. Your perfect failure record is the other.

6. We really don't know what the climate has been like prior to most post WWII.

Delusional..

7. The turkeys use correlation as a fact when in reality there make not be a correlation.

Nobody on the rational side has done that. We point out correlation is necessary, but not sufficient. It's your side that says any correlation with whatever variable they come up with is proof. Again, you're projecting.

8. The historical data we have says that atmospheric CO2 levels lags temperature increases.

Totally consistent with CO2 being both a forcing and a feedback. You suck hard at the basics.

9. The AGW turkeys refer to NASA satellite data extensively. However, they fail to tell us that the data sensors are not calibrated close enough to determine the low levels of temperature increases they claim. The sensors are good to about +/- 4 F but yet the weenies are claiming a half degree.

I'd never heard such a fable before. Who fed the story to you, and why did you fall for it? Temperatures are taken from surface stations. Climate scientists say that satellite temps are _not_ reliable, because it's not possible to measure surface temperatures from space directly.

If your claim isn't fictional, I'm sure you can back it up with some hard evidence. However, if you did just tell us a big whopper, you'll fling insults and evade backing it up. We already know which route you'll choose.

Just remember -- stupid, drunk and fraudulent is no way to go through life, son.

 

[Flash]

5. The principal scientists have been caught red handed fabricating and cherry picking data.

Outright projection on your part. All of the fraud, which is constant and pervasive, is coming from your side. That big lie of yours was one example.

Your constant ongoing fraud is one reason why nobody pays any attention to your cult. Your perfect failure record is the other.

6. We really don't know what the climate has been like prior to most post WWII.

Delusional..

7. The turkeys use correlation as a fact when in reality there make not be a correlation.

Nobody on the rational side has done that. We point out correlation is necessary, but not sufficient. It's your side that says any correlation with whatever variable they come up with is proof. Again, you're projecting.

8. The historical data we have says that atmospheric CO2 levels lags temperature increases.

Totally consistent with CO2 being both a forcing and a feedback. You suck hard at the basics.

9. The AGW turkeys refer to NASA satellite data extensively. However, they fail to tell us that the data sensors are not calibrated close enough to determine the low levels of temperature increases they claim. The sensors are good to about +/- 4 F but yet the weenies are claiming a half degree.

I'd never heard such a fable before. Who fed the story to you, and why did you fall for it? Temperatures are taken from surface stations. Climate scientists say that satellite temps are _not_ reliable, because it's not possible to measure surface temperatures from space directly.

If your claim isn't fictional, I'm sure you can back it up with some hard evidence. However, if you did just tell us a big whopper, you'll fling insults and evade backing it up. We already know which route you'll choose.

Just remember -- stupid, drunk and fraudulent is no way to go through life, son.

Denial, denial denial. Your ridiculous AGW religious cult has no credibility but you stupid uneducated Moon Bats still hang onto it.

 

[mamooth]

If a probe heats to 70 degrees, how does it emit hotter than 70 degrees? Please we’re all waiting.

Ow, the stupid, it burns, and at a lot hotter than 70 degrees.

Dumbass here actually thinks that an object emits a single frequency based on temperature.

Other than as an exercise in demonsrating his stupidity, I have no idea what that idiot question was supposed to be about. It just came in out of the blue, it makes no sense at all, and it doesn't seem to be related to anything being discussed.

 

[mamooth]

Denial, denial denial. Your ridiculous AGW religious cult has no credibility but you stupid uneducated Moon Bats still hang onto it.

Got it. You're not going to provide your sources. You're going to run, because you can't back any of it up.

Just as I predicted. We rational people are always very good with our predictions. When you're in touch with reality, that's how it works.

 

[jc456]

Ow, the stupid, it burns, and at a lot hotter than 70 degrees

How? How can something at 70 degrees emit hotter than that temperature? Link

btw, it goes to your stupid video

 

[jc456]

So why are you claiming that's the level in the chambers? Why did you make such a stupid claim? Was it stupidity or dishonesty

You should watch the video hahaha

 

[mamooth]

Ow, the stupid, it burns, and at a lot hotter than 70 degrees

How? How can something at 70 degrees emit hotter than that temperature? Link

Emission is a wide spectrum, not a single frequency. If you bump up the temp, it shifts the whole spectrum up a bit.

Please provide for us your detailed thought processes on what point that question was supposed to be making. Don't play stupid question games. State your point clearly and directly. Don't expect us to make your point for you, because we have no idea what your point is.

 

[jc456]

Ow, the stupid, it burns, and at a lot hotter than 70 degrees

How? How can something at 70 degrees emit hotter than that temperature? Link

Emission is a wide spectrum, not a single frequency. If you bump up the temp, it shifts the whole spectrum up a bit.

Please provide for us your detailed thought processes on what point that question was supposed to be making. Don't play stupid question games. State your point clearly and directly. Don't expect us to make your point for you, because we have no idea what your point is.

Your video like I said.

no link huh?

 

[jc456]

If a probe heats to 70 degrees, how does it emit hotter than 70 degrees? Please we’re all waiting.

Ow, the stupid, it burns, and at a lot hotter than 70 degrees.

Dumbass here actually thinks that an object emits a single frequency based on temperature.

Other than as an exercise in demonsrating his stupidity, I have no idea what that idiot question was supposed to be about. It just came in out of the blue, it makes no sense at all, and it doesn't seem to be related to anything being discussed.

Actually I asked for a link

 

[mamooth]

Actually I asked for a link

I can't link to something that explains your fantasies for multiple reasons. The first is that I don't know what your fantasies are. I keep asking for specifics, and your only reply is that I have to provide links for ... something. It's a mystery.

 

[jc456]

Actually I asked for a link

I can't link to something that explains your fantasies for multiple reasons. The first is that I don't know what your fantasies are. I keep asking for specifics, and your only reply is that I have to provide links for ... something. It's a mystery.

I drop my mic

 

[Dadoalex]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

Asked and answered.

If you've a point, make it.

He did. The AGW crowd is an anti science religious cult.

Sylvia Brown, a KNOWN charlatan, has a far better predictive rate than ANY climatologists. ANYWHERE.

No, HE didn't.
If HE wants a class in thermodynamics, hydrodynamics. chemistry and general physics I suggest HE go back to school.

As brilliant as I am this is no place to be teaching high school science.

Yes, he did. The fact that you don't understand the scientific method shows me you are nothing but a liar.

Understand?
Understand that this moron thinks CO2 PRODUCES heat?
Then uses his own bit of stupidity as the foundation for why HE BELIEVES global warming is false.

All I've done here is pointed out that mistake.

Science likes it when mistakes are found.
Brings it closer to the truth.
Charlatan liars don't like it when their mistakes are found because they know their "mistakes" are really lies.

So tell me...

HOW DOES CO2 PRODUCE HEAT?

 

[westwall]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

Asked and answered.

If you've a point, make it.

He did. The AGW crowd is an anti science religious cult.

Sylvia Brown, a KNOWN charlatan, has a far better predictive rate than ANY climatologists. ANYWHERE.

No, HE didn't.
If HE wants a class in thermodynamics, hydrodynamics. chemistry and general physics I suggest HE go back to school.

As brilliant as I am this is no place to be teaching high school science.

Yes, he did. The fact that you don't understand the scientific method shows me you are nothing but a liar.

Understand?
Understand that this moron thinks CO2 PRODUCES heat?
Then uses his own bit of stupidity as the foundation for why HE BELIEVES global warming is false.

All I've done here is pointed out that mistake.

Science likes it when mistakes are found.
Brings it closer to the truth.
Charlatan liars don't like it when their mistakes are found because they know their "mistakes" are really lies.

So tell me...

HOW DOES CO2 PRODUCE HEAT?

It doesn't. All a greenhouse gas can do is keep heat from escaping to space. It can not add energy to the system.

Climatologists claims are laughable on their face because what they postulate is a perpetual motion machine.

 

[jc456]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

Asked and answered.

If you've a point, make it.

He did. The AGW crowd is an anti science religious cult.

Sylvia Brown, a KNOWN charlatan, has a far better predictive rate than ANY climatologists. ANYWHERE.

No, HE didn't.
If HE wants a class in thermodynamics, hydrodynamics. chemistry and general physics I suggest HE go back to school.

As brilliant as I am this is no place to be teaching high school science.

Yes, he did. The fact that you don't understand the scientific method shows me you are nothing but a liar.

Understand?
Understand that this moron thinks CO2 PRODUCES heat?
Then uses his own bit of stupidity as the foundation for why HE BELIEVES global warming is false.

All I've done here is pointed out that mistake.

Science likes it when mistakes are found.
Brings it closer to the truth.
Charlatan liars don't like it when their mistakes are found because they know their "mistakes" are really lies.

So tell me...

HOW DOES CO2 PRODUCE HEAT?

then why do all of the warmers say it does? they say it adds to the energy budget. Post cartoons and illistrated colors of such nonsense. Shit, even posted a video from Mythbuster's in here saying the CO2 chamber got hotter. Can only be one explanation into that comment. And that is that wrongly posted position that CO2 adds to the energy budget and makes us warmer. hahahahahahaha, you're arguing with us, not against us. We're asking for that evidence from those dumbshits that CO2 adds warmth. still waiting. Frank is asking them to post how that is possible.

 

[mamooth]

It doesn't. All a greenhouse gas can do is keep heat from escaping to space. It can not add energy to the system.

Climatologists claims are laughable on their face because what they postulate is a perpetual motion machine.

According to Westwall's retardation there, painting your walls white is a perpetual motion machine, because it increases the energy flux inside the system. He's a special type of stupid.

 

[jc456]

It doesn't. All a greenhouse gas can do is keep heat from escaping to space. It can not add energy to the system.

Climatologists claims are laughable on their face because what they postulate is a perpetual motion machine.

According to Westwall's retardation there, painting your walls white is a perpetual motion machine, because it increases the energy flux inside the system. He's a special type of stupid.

Perpetual motion is all yours , own it! Why are you afraid of it? Still waiting to see C02 add heat. Go!

 

[Dadoalex]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

Asked and answered.

If you've a point, make it.

He did. The AGW crowd is an anti science religious cult.

Sylvia Brown, a KNOWN charlatan, has a far better predictive rate than ANY climatologists. ANYWHERE.

No, HE didn't.
If HE wants a class in thermodynamics, hydrodynamics. chemistry and general physics I suggest HE go back to school.

As brilliant as I am this is no place to be teaching high school science.

Yes, he did. The fact that you don't understand the scientific method shows me you are nothing but a liar.

Understand?
Understand that this moron thinks CO2 PRODUCES heat?
Then uses his own bit of stupidity as the foundation for why HE BELIEVES global warming is false.

All I've done here is pointed out that mistake.

Science likes it when mistakes are found.
Brings it closer to the truth.
Charlatan liars don't like it when their mistakes are found because they know their "mistakes" are really lies.

So tell me...

HOW DOES CO2 PRODUCE HEAT?

It doesn't. All a greenhouse gas can do is keep heat from escaping to space. It can not add energy to the system.

Climatologists claims are laughable on their face because what they postulate is a perpetual motion machine.

The claim that CO2 adds heat is ridiculous and not the claim of any respected scientist.

 

[Dadoalex]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

Asked and answered.

If you've a point, make it.

He did. The AGW crowd is an anti science religious cult.

Sylvia Brown, a KNOWN charlatan, has a far better predictive rate than ANY climatologists. ANYWHERE.

No, HE didn't.
If HE wants a class in thermodynamics, hydrodynamics. chemistry and general physics I suggest HE go back to school.

As brilliant as I am this is no place to be teaching high school science.

Yes, he did. The fact that you don't understand the scientific method shows me you are nothing but a liar.

Understand?
Understand that this moron thinks CO2 PRODUCES heat?
Then uses his own bit of stupidity as the foundation for why HE BELIEVES global warming is false.

All I've done here is pointed out that mistake.

Science likes it when mistakes are found.
Brings it closer to the truth.
Charlatan liars don't like it when their mistakes are found because they know their "mistakes" are really lies.

So tell me...

HOW DOES CO2 PRODUCE HEAT?

then why do all of the warmers say it does? they say it adds to the energy budget. Post cartoons and illistrated colors of such nonsense. Shit, even posted a video from Mythbuster's in here saying the CO2 chamber got hotter. Can only be one explanation into that comment. And that is that wrongly posted position that CO2 adds to the energy budget and makes us warmer. hahahahahahaha, you're arguing with us, not against us. We're asking for that evidence from those dumbshits that CO2 adds warmth. still waiting. Frank is asking them to post how that is possible.

That has to be one of the STUPIDEST posts ever.

BUT...

Why don't you quote some respected scientists in any goddamn field who claims that CO2 produces heat.

Even the anti-science morons aren't that stupid.

 

[Dadoalex]

It doesn't. All a greenhouse gas can do is keep heat from escaping to space. It can not add energy to the system.

Climatologists claims are laughable on their face because what they postulate is a perpetual motion machine.

According to Westwall's retardation there, painting your walls white is a perpetual motion machine, because it increases the energy flux inside the system. He's a special type of stupid.

Perpetual motion is all yours , own it! Why are you afraid of it? Still waiting to see C02 add heat. Go!

Then go ask the moron who made the claim.
One of yours you know!