There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

[JusticeHammer]

Bullshit

 

[jc456]

There you go. But your comments about China and India are completely meaningless if you actually believe there is no problem.

The flip side to you. If you can’t see those two as issues then it’s no issue here!

You get it?

 

[Crick]

The flip side to you. If you can’t see those two as issues then it’s no issue here!

You get it?

Yes. The whole world needs to stop burning fossil fuels. But no one should be waiting for anyone else. Put all the pressure on them that you like, but waiting for them before doing anything ourselves - THAT is the height of STUPIDITY.

 

[jc456]

Yes. The whole world needs to stop burning fossil fuels. But no one should be waiting for anyone else. Put all the pressure on them that you like, but waiting for them before doing anything ourselves - THAT is the height of STUPIDITY.

I’ve asked and asked besides pollution, what is the issue?

One day perhaps nuclear plants should be built

 

[Crick]

I’ve asked and asked besides pollution, what is the issue?

Don't play stupid. GHG emissions.

One day perhaps nuclear plants should be built

You know I favor nuclear power.

 

[jc456]

Don't play stupid. GHG emissions

They don’t do anything, strange you worry about a nonexistent issue.

Weird

 

[Crick]

They don’t do anything, strange you worry about a nonexistent issue.

Weird

So you're smarter than all the scientists for the last 150 years. Who would have thought.

 

[jc456]

So you're smarter than all the scientists for the last 150 years. Who would have thought.

All? Hmmm what an odd statement. There are thousands of scientists who say what I say. You like avoiding them because it makes you look stupid.

Best one I heard this morning, that CO2 makes up .04% of the atmosphere and we need at least .02% to exist. So again, that .012% of CO2 is causing issues you can't begin to describe since they don't exist. Gotcha.

 

[Crick]

All? Hmmm what an odd statement. There are thousands of scientists who say what I say.

No, there are not.

You like avoiding them because it makes you look stupid.

Feel free to show us a list of thousands of scientists saying what you say.

Best one I heard this morning, that CO2 makes up .04% of the atmosphere and we need at least .02% to exist. So again, that .012% of CO2 is causing issues you can't begin to describe since they don't exist. Gotcha.

It's actually 140 ppm that humans have added to the atmosphere. And yes, that is the source of almost all of our global warming. In addition there has been methane, fluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and deforestation.

I have repeatedly described the real consequences of greenhouse warming here because they do exist. Rejecting reality, as you seem fond of doing, is not a smart tactic for anyone at any place and at any time.

 

[jc456]

No, there are not.

Here's 30,000 of them!!! As I stated, you wouldn't want to give them any press because then your 'all' statement is dead like it actually is.

FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?

More than 30,000 people may have signed a petition challenging the veracity of anthropogenic global warming, but you don’t have to be a climate scientist to sign it.

www.snopes.com

What's True
A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[jc456]

Feel free to show us a list of thousands of scientists saying what you say.

see post #270

 

[jc456]

No, there are not.

Feel free to show us a list of thousands of scientists saying what you say.

It's actually 140 ppm that humans have added to the atmosphere. And yes, that is the source of almost all of our global warming. In addition there has been methane, fluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and deforestation.

I have repeatedly described the real consequences of greenhouse warming here because they do exist. Rejecting reality, as you seem fond of doing, is not a smart tactic for anyone at any place and at any time.

all warming. Warming that you can't point to. Another oddity from you.

 

[Crick]

all warming. Warming that you can't point to. Another oddity from you.

I don't know what you're talking about here but it doesn't seem to be a list of thousands of scientists saying what you say.

 

[jc456]

I don't know what you're talking about here but it doesn't seem to be a list of thousands of scientists saying what you say.

because that link was in Post #270. Pay attention.

 

[Crick]

because that link was in Post #270. Pay attention.

Pay attention to what? A link to Snopes showing that thousands of those signers are NOT scientists and that not a single one was ever verified by the Oregon Petition Project? That doesn't fulfill your obligation. You said thousands of scientists. So far, that's a fail.

 

[jc456]

Pay attention to what? A link to Snopes showing that thousands of those signers are NOT scientists and that not a single one was ever verified by the Oregon Petition Project? That doesn't fulfill your obligation. You said thousands of scientists. So far, that's a fail.

Except when they said it was true like I posted in #270

 

[Crick]

Except when they said it was true like I posted in #270

Jesus, you need to do a little more thinking before you post. Did you not see the word "claim" in what you posted in #270? HERE is Snopes conclusion on that claim:

 

[Crick]

Your appeals to authority do not phase me.

They ought to.
From USMB's Site Wide Rules and Guidelines

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
• Furthermore, when starting a new thread and declaring something as fact in your opening post, you must also link to a source. For example, "Polls say 2/3 of people think x, y, z." You need to link to a source for one of those alleged polls. Telling others to Google it on their own is not acceptable.

The assumptions they make are from failed modeling that exaggerates warming by no less than a factor of ten.

The conclusions they reach are based on fundamental science, a topic of which you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance.

I showed you why that is happening.

You have not. Feel free to provide a link to where a real scientist explains it.

Your appeals do not make your case.

You love the word "appeals" don't you. What I have been doing is called citation, not appeals. What you have been doing is called lying.

You appear to not have even a basic concept of how the atmosphere works or why, yet you pontificate without knowledge.

Oh, the irony.

Please share with the class how you stopped natural variational processes and made all warming be caused by CO2.

Warming is not caused by any "variational processes". The rules of physics and chemistry do not vary, Whizbrain. I strongly suspect that you haven't the faintest idea what a variational process actually is but you really ought to look it up. Could save embarrassment later. And I have repeatedly pointed out that other processes cause warming and others cause cooling. Yours is a blatant straw man argument.

That is the major fallacy in the AGW hypothesis.

Good, because AGW theory contains no such thing.

Even if I said it was all due to CO2 it is still less than half of the expected warming by CO2 according to its expected Log values.

From Box TS.2 of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", pg 46

Equilibrium climate sensitivity. Paleoclimate data provide evidence to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS15) (Section​

TS.3.2.1). In AR6, refinements in paleo data for paleoclimate reference periods indicate that ECS is very likely greater than 1.5°C and​

likely less than 4.5°C, which is largely consistent with other lines of evidence and helps narrow the uncertainty range of the overall​

assessment of ECS. Some of the CMIP6 climate models that have either high (>5°C) or low (<2°C) ECS also simulate past global​

surface temperature changes outside the range of proxy-based reconstructions for the coldest and warmest reference periods. Since​

AR5, independent lines of evidence, including proxy records from past warm periods and glacial–interglacial cycles, indicate that​

sensitivity to forcing increases as temperature increases (Section TS.3.2.2). {7.4.3.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.6, Table 7.11}​

See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", TS.3.2 ppg 93 - 96
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.4.2 Assessing Climate Feedbacks ppg 968 - 979
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.5 Estimates of ECS and TCR ppg 992 - 1011

Take a shot at refuting all of this. I'm not the scientist here (and, of course, neither are you) but I know where to find them.

This means the atmospheres dampening it and there is no "positive feedback loop".

I'm still waiting to hear the explanation of this dampening you keep talking about. And Chapter 7.4.2, noted above, has a great deal more information on feedbacks than I've ever heard from you or your friends here.

Your own links show the deception and kill the AGW Hypothesis.

Sorry, but no, they do not.

 

[jc456]

The conclusions they reach are based on fundamental science,

no they're not. If they did, then you could post something other than IPCC nonsense.

 

[Crick]

no they're not. If they did, then you could post something other than IPCC nonsense.

I say again, you need to do more thinking before you post. What do you think the IPCC does?