Three Big Supporters Throw Climate Hoaxers Overboard

[SpidermanTuba]

Al Gore isn't a scientist.

Global warming is not a hoax, sorry.

No Gore's not a scientist but he's a fraud. Look at his profits over this carbon trading hoax we all complain about exorbitant profits, well lets look at this snake oil salesman's books.

Yep. OwlGore and his like have complained of profits from companies like oil...and let us NOT forget that OwlGore himself has a huge stake in OIL, and Tobacco...and now CARBON Profits.

He's a FRAUD. He's been CAUGHT.

Yep
Pat on the back
agree! agree!
Those dirty hippies!

Can't be right, doesn't feel right to me, the Earf is just soooooo.... Biigg!!!!!

Listen, i thought about it for a few seconds, so I know I'm right

here here

ha ha al gore stupid

 

[oreo]

Quite hillarious..... it's all said and done now that this was all a hoax, yet we still have the "flat Earthers" clinging on to this rather than admit they were duped.

Wow... that's all I have to say is "WOW".

Yep--& I am sure tired of shoveling all of this "global warming snow" out of my drive-way--

 

[MIPS]

Quite hillarious..... it's all said and done now that this was all a hoax, yet we still have the "flat Earthers" clinging on to this rather than admit they were duped.

Wow... that's all I have to say is "WOW".

Yep--& I am sure tired of shoveling all of this "global warming snow" out of my drive-way--


View attachment 9540

Just imagine how tired Al Gore and the IPCC are, after all shoveling bullshit is a lot more strenuous than shoveling snow.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

quite hillarious..... It's all said and done now that this was all a hoax, yet we still have the "flat earthers" clinging on to this rather than admit they were duped.

Wow... That's all i have to say is "wow".

yep--& i am sure tired of shoveling all of this "global warming snow" out of my drive-way--


View attachment 9540

that's right, because global warming predicts it will never snow again really, are you this stupid?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Quite hillarious..... it's all said and done now that this was all a hoax, yet we still have the "flat Earthers" clinging on to this rather than admit they were duped.

Wow... that's all I have to say is "WOW".

Yep--& I am sure tired of shoveling all of this "global warming snow" out of my drive-way--


View attachment 9540

Just imagine how tired Al Gore and the IPCC are, after all shoveling bullshit is a lot more strenuous than shoveling snow.

DEED dee ha ha funy joke = truth no need for science

 

[CMike]

Why did you link to the 2005 report? Its the report published in 1991 that they are referring to. Are you a moron?

Because it refers to that study as well.

And.... so what? What do you want me to do with it?

Whatever you want.

You are challenging it, find the information to challenge it.

 

[CMike]

If you want to examine the study, then get what you want and study it.

I quoted from it. If you think it's false, the onus is on you to prove it.

Global warming is not a scientific issue, it's a political one.

I need to know the PAGE NUMBER

The 1991 study is a 520 page report

If the pamphlet writers actually wanted people to verify their claims about what they say the study says, they would have put the page number

1990 integrated assessment report (Open Library)

Then find it

 

[CMike]

Ok

does anyone wanna talk about science?

Your "science" is largely based upon the academic political echo chamber that is "peer review", and they're both dead letters.

All scientific literature is subject to peer review. That's how science is done. I'm sorry you're so willfully, ignorant, but its kind of your fault.

Not necessarily. Almos all of it in the case of the global warming, global cooling, and acid rain, hoaxes are largely based on telling the lefties in the government that control the grans what they want to hear.

 

[CMike]

I don't need your holy "peer review" to show that rising warm moist air forms cumulus clouds....

Of course not, that's because you can reference scientific literature that has already undergone peer review.

Seriously, how does it feel to be the dumbest person in the world?

You would know. Tell us?

 

[CMike]

No Gore's not a scientist but he's a fraud. Look at his profits over this carbon trading hoax we all complain about exorbitant profits, well lets look at this snake oil salesman's books.

Yep. OwlGore and his like have complained of profits from companies like oil...and let us NOT forget that OwlGore himself has a huge stake in OIL, and Tobacco...and now CARBON Profits.

He's a FRAUD. He's been CAUGHT.

Yep
Pat on the back
agree! agree!
Those dirty hippies!

Can't be right, doesn't feel right to me, the Earf is just soooooo.... Biigg!!!!!

Listen, i thought about it for a few seconds, so I know I'm right

here here

ha ha al gore stupid

For someone mentioning his long for science, I have yet to see you post any, other than your own opinion.

 

[CMike]

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.112

Conclusion:

Since water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas on the Earth, and since the Earth is mostly water covered, it is easy to see why the response of water to perturbations in the level and distribution of Solar insolation would be most important in the shift from glacial ages to interglacial periods. Reasonable arguments can be made for a strong positive feedback of water vapor to explain the rapid temperature increase during the transition. It is clear that such feedbacks are self-limiting, since the increase stops. However, the possible claim that the much smaller CO2 contribution, which even lags the sharp initial rise by many years, can then cause an even stronger positive feedback defies logic.

A recent significant increase of CO2, possibly with a large anthropogenic input, still results in a total less than 7% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect. Only about 1/3 of that is in the increase over the claimed "natural" levels. It is posited that this can somehow override the water vapor self-limiting mechanism by triggering a small increase in temperature to thus release more water vapor and supercharge a temperature rise to several times the direct effect of the CO2 itself. Since the self-limiting mechanism for the water vapor is present, this does not follow logically. Actual temperature changes have many drivers, but CO2 does not appear to be a significant driver at the levels or variations in levels present, and certainly can't have the amplifying effect claimed.

Click here for a brief Bio of Leonard Weinstein, ScD


Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognition’s for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Because it refers to that study as well.

And.... so what? What do you want me to do with it?

Whatever you want.

You are challenging it, find the information to challenge it.

Uhh, no. That's not the right report. We've been through this before. The report the silly little pamphlet cited - w/o a page number - was a 520 page 1990 report published in 1991. The link provided is to a 2005 report. Stop being an idiot.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then find it

I'll just assume the writers of the pamphlet don't actually want me to check their sources. Its made abundantly obvious by the fact they failed to provide a page number. Since they don't want us to check their sources, we should also assume they are misrepresenting them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

All scientific literature is subject to peer review. That's how science is done. I'm sorry you're so willfully, ignorant, but its kind of your fault.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.


Please stop talking about things you are woefully ignorant about.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, make sure you always source your work!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Reprinted here with the permission of Leonard Weinstein, ScD

Translation - NOT PEER REVIEWED.


If it had been peer reviewed the publishing journal would hold the copyright.

A single author paper written someone who is retired, not subject to peer review, published on a blog with clearly pre-determined conclusions.

Sorry, I've got better things to do.

 

[Oddball]

Have you seen this man?

 

[The T]

Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / Debunking the CO2 Feedback Myth - by Leonard Weinstein, ScD

Conclusion:

Since water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas on the Earth, and since the Earth is mostly water covered, it is easy to see why the response of water to perturbations in the level and distribution of Solar insolation would be most important in the shift from glacial ages to interglacial periods. Reasonable arguments can be made for a strong positive feedback of water vapor to explain the rapid temperature increase during the transition. It is clear that such feedbacks are self-limiting, since the increase stops. However, the possible claim that the much smaller CO2 contribution, which even lags the sharp initial rise by many years, can then cause an even stronger positive feedback defies logic.

A recent significant increase of CO2, possibly with a large anthropogenic input, still results in a total less than 7% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect. Only about 1/3 of that is in the increase over the claimed "natural" levels. It is posited that this can somehow override the water vapor self-limiting mechanism by triggering a small increase in temperature to thus release more water vapor and supercharge a temperature rise to several times the direct effect of the CO2 itself. Since the self-limiting mechanism for the water vapor is present, this does not follow logically. Actual temperature changes have many drivers, but CO2 does not appear to be a significant driver at the levels or variations in levels present, and certainly can't have the amplifying effect claimed.

Click here for a brief Bio of Leonard Weinstein, ScD


Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognition’s for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

And these 'Hybrids' that they insist that we drive? What is the main output of these vehicles (other than mechanical motion)?

WATER VAPOR...H20...the stuff that is a major pollutant? Say it ain't so?

To me? This whole thing...this HOAX is just that...it's manipulation.

 

[CMike]

Then find it

I'll just assume the writers of the pamphlet don't actually want me to check their sources. Its made abundantly obvious by the fact they failed to provide a page number. Since they don't want us to check their sources, we should also assume they are misrepresenting them.

It's a government report.

If you want to check it then check it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is another report:

According to the World Climate Report, several errors have been found in the fourth assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, which include setbacks with African agriculture, Himalayan glaciers, attribution of damages from extreme weather events and the significant increase in sea ice. Majority of the errors come from the non peer-reviewed sources.

IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%

However, they still want your money.