# Global Warming Deniers, discuss your theories here!



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.

Hint:

Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.


huh? where is it warming?


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> ...



We have been having brutal winters in Ohio and recently set records. In North America the Artic cold is moving mid-continent. The Law of Thermodynamics somehow has to figure in this turn of events.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


Learn what happens to the Jet Stream when temperature gradient between tropics and arctic equalizes.

Thermodynamics does figure into this, not in the favor of global warming deniers.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


so you can't state where it's gotten warmer eh?

By the way, that is driven by the ocean heat or lack of it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

2 decade pause is the new warming


----------



## gipper (Sep 13, 2016)

How can one logical deny that which does not exist?


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Brambo said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2016)

*Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.* 





Current Conditions | U.S Drought Portal

*For the last several decades, every decade the snows come later in the fall, and melt off earlier in the spring. The forests are being devastated by the failure of cold enough winters to kill the parasites that feed on the trees. The warmer and dryer conditions have led to years like 2015 that have had devastating wild fires, fires that actually threatened cities and towns.*


----------



## gipper (Sep 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Propaganda.  

Who would believe such foolishness?


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

Ospreys have recently started nesting in Ohio. Ospreys are a warm water bird never seen up here before. Ospreys fly south for the winter or they would freeze to death.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2016)

gipper said:


> How can one logical deny that which does not exist?


So, you are so stupid as to deny the reality of the present warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2016)

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.*
> ...


Just the people that are living there are experiancing those conditions. Who the hell would believe an ignorant asshole that apparently denies the obvioius.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> Ospreys have recently started nesting in Ohio. Ospreys are a warm water bird never seen up here before. Ospreys fly south for the winter or they would freeze to death.


and canadian geese have now infested the chicago land area.  millions upon millions of em.  Look those puppies up on their environment.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > How can one logical deny that which does not exist?
> ...


what warming?


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



ignorance is bliss


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

*Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says*
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.


Liar.

Anyone who claims that solar output does not affect the Earth's temperature is a complete moron.


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
> 
> *Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says*
> Kate Ravilious
> ...



I think we are in a prolonged sun spot minimum which means less solar radiation but the Earth is heating up which is counter intuitive.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> ...



CO2 isotopic abundance ratios prove that the rise in CO2 is not due to Volcanoes.

Satellite measurements of the Solar Irradiance proves the Sun is not heating-up, and the atmosphere is not uniformly heating it's heating in the Troposphere where CO2 affects the most.

And the orbital pattern is almost virtually...OBVIOUS, we can definitely measure that.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
> ...


Mars has been warming for the last 80,000 years.  We can tell from ice sheet development on Mars.

Mars has approximately 160,000 year orbital wobble that affects Martian climate.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



Texas had a very mild winter.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 13, 2016)

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you understand precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change.


----------



## gipper (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> Ospreys have recently started nesting in Ohio. Ospreys are a warm water bird never seen up here before. Ospreys fly south for the winter or they would freeze to death.


Yeah...and I saw palm trees ringing Hudson Bay.  It is down right balmy there.  I can sell you some lake front property there...but you must never feed the polar bears.


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Mars has an almost 90* tilt during the long precession time. I think the Earth has a max of 23* tilt due to our Moon that I call Luna.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?
> 
> If you cannot answer that question, you understand precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change.



Because it is an isolated system insulated by ocean currents and a circum polar storm belt.  Even the CO2 ppm is 10-20 years behind the rest of the mixed atmosphere of the Earth.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?
> 
> If you cannot answer that question, you understand precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change.



The land mass has a high altitude.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

BlindBoo said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?
> ...


That also contributes, but rather it's the ice mass.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Interestingly when ice shelves break off Antarctica the glaciers have been seen to increase to 8x their historic speed.  So the collapse of Antarctic ice is a very clear and present danger as the ice shelves break loose of the continent.  Which is happening en masse lately. Some the size of Connecticut.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


it's hilarious reading your responses.  you have no idea do you?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Interestingly when ice shelves break off Antarctica the glaciers have been seen to increase to 8x their historic speed.  So the collapse of Antarctic ice is a very clear and present danger as the ice shelves break loose of the continent.  Which is happening en masse lately. Some the size of Connecticut.


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?
> ...



The Southern Ocean is not usually included as one of the seven seas. I know there are very powerful typhoons in the Philippine Sea. With waves over 120' high.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly when ice shelves break off Antarctica the glaciers have been seen to increase to 8x their historic speed.  So the collapse of Antarctic ice is a very clear and present danger as the ice shelves break loose of the continent.  Which is happening en masse lately. Some the size of Connecticut.



I know that very information is in the video I posted on my only other Global Warming thread.  Find it there cuz I'm at work so might not repost it any time soon. I'm only glancing at my alerts.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

BlindBoo said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?
> ...




Thanks. That is an underreported condition.

As is the importance of Antarctic sea ice being more efficient at reflecting sunshine because it is closer to the equator than Arctic sea ice.


----------



## xband (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



I used to argue with global warming deniers all the time and they could not supply any scientific proof. When I countered their frivolous arguments with ancient core lake bed samples showing what kind of pollen were there, they did not understand me or refused to believe me. The new catch word is climate change that nobody can deny.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> ...



Now YOU CLAIM TO BE CAPTAIN OBVIOUS?

If it's a Brambo post it's a moronic post.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Pop23 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


It's quite obvious you two don't understand that I was referring to change in solar irradiance.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


scientific proof of what that global warming doesn't exist?  Well why don't you all prove it does since it's your claim?  Funny how you all can't even back your own shit.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



Arctic ice is melting away, pretty solid evidence.  Have another theory why Arctic ice is melting so rapidly?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...


it is?  got any photos showing it gone?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 13, 2016)

I won't argue that world temperatures are not rising.

They are.

I just won't buy into the whackoid theory that "man" is responsible.  

It's entirely natural.  Cycles.  

Nobody, not even St. Algore, is going to "save the planet".  If the planet decides this human infestation has outlived its purpose we're gone.  End discussion.

If we want to save our sorry asses we must spend less time fucking around with nature and learn to accommodate to it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



Matt, can you post one (1) lab experiment showing the effect a 120PPM change in CO2 has on temperature?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> ...





This is the only proof the sock has


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 13, 2016)

xband said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




WTF? Now the AGW cult is saying we changed it from global cooling>global warming >to climate change?


Sorry pal that was you fools


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...



The arctic has higher accumulation of CO2 and is warming faster than the rest of the globe.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> I won't argue that world temperatures are not rising.
> 
> They are.
> 
> ...


If it's natural cycles...WHAT CYCLES?

Where's your THEORY why the Earth is warming?  Your denialist theories?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Arrhenius already did this 150 years ago you dumb twat.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


in other words, no, you cannot.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


explain his experiment? What did he do?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed and Jc56 who liked each other's posts are stupid twats.

There are countless CO2 experiments.

US Thermal guidance weapons testing is where the best data comes from how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.

These fuckers don't think there are experiments to prove CO2 is a green house gas.

What fucking idiotic twats.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Look it up yourself bozo.

Look up the US thermal guidance weapons testing of the 50s-70s.

The information is GOOGLE


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed and Jc56 who liked each other's posts are stupid twats.
> 
> There are countless CO2 experiments.
> 
> ...


dude, post one up that shows CO2 changing temperatures.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


I did, it's why it doesn't prove CO2 changes temperatures or climate.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed and Jc56 who liked each other's posts are stupid twats.
> ...


CO2 increases the heat of its environment by 4watts per square meter.

Too much math for you dummy.

http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/calc temperature increase.pdf


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



You just got dominated. you pathetic cuck.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


well let's see the experiment bubba.  I'm telling you you will never post one, cause one doesn't exist.  Like to bet?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You did not or you'd find research papers like the one I gave you.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Experiments do exist, LOLZ, how about you go about proving they don't?  That's a new stupid one even for dumb shit Denialists.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


it's not an experiment.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It's the proven results that can be measured by experimentation.  Why do you hate facts?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


they don't exist.  There I proved it.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Stupid ****...so Arrhenius' experiment doesn't exist?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


then dude, do us all a favor and post one.  BTW, you'd be the first in five years.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You are really so stupid that you can't just look up your own CO2 experiments.  What kind of experiment are you even looking for?

You think the 4watts per square meter is made up?  Fucking dumb ass.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


it doesn't do what you think.  but hey, stay uniformed.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


yeah, I do.  So if it isn't, just post the experiment.  And hey, don't get  mad at me cause you can't find one.  It isn't my fault no one actually did science.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 13, 2016)

If the sun did not exist, what would the surface air temperature of the Earth be?

Chicken little dumbasses are too fucking stupid to even fathom that.

Then just assume that the sun has no influence whatsoever on the Earth's temperature.

They are complete idiots.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I posted researched peer reviewed papers.  Not my fault you're a dumb shit holocaust denier.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> If the sun did not exist, what would the surface air temperature of the Earth be?
> 
> Chicken little dumbasses are too fucking stupid to even fathom that.


Stupid statement, the Sun's irradiance hasn't changed any.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

wow, this is like deja-vu all over again.  new poster old story line


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.








Warming in relation to what?  The Little Ice Age that we are still recovering from?  Your question is stupid.  As are you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


papers presented by modeling or hypothetical, I'm looking for the experiment that validated all of that.  but again, you won't find it.  It disproves all of that, and they can't have that happen.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > If the sun did not exist, what would the surface air temperature of the Earth be?
> ...





  Sure thing junior.  Sure thing..


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

westwall said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Total Solar Irradiance fluctuates between a 0.5 watt per square meter amount between roughly 1,364 and 1,365 watts per square meter.

LOL you people are really...really stupid.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Then follow the citations duh.  You're really bad at this.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


i'm not the one that can't post up a flippin experiment to prove your paper.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > If the sun did not exist, what would the surface air temperature of the Earth be?
> ...


Got any proof of that? 

Or are you just another brainwashed stupid fucking idiot with AlGore's penis tickling your epiglottis?

Where is your evidence that a star's "irradiance" never ever wavers?

You are a brainwashed fool.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

You you fucking tards go, a compilation of many of the experiments that show the spectral bands of many gasses, notably CO2, including how this adds heat to a gasseous system.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Look up Total Solar Irradiance you dumb shit...what the fuck is wrong with you people?  No one takes you holocaust deniers seriously.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


In other words, you were fucking wrong, dumbass.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...







  We do silly boy.  Soooooo, calculate the warming effect that you so kindly provided OVER THE ENTIRE PLANET.

I'll wait...


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


0.5 watts per square meter out of 1,365 watts per square meter is *VIRTUALLY NO CHANGE AT ALL*.

It's a small fraction, that represents 1/16th the change that is caused by CO2 alone.  (0.25 watts from the mean).

*You're a stupid shit-filled fly covered vagina.*


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...








  You appear to be as good at math as mann is... which is to say pretty fucking pathetic!


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

westwall said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Better than you.  .25 is 1/16th of 4.

.25 is the deviation from the mean of a 0.5 fluctuation.

0.5 watts (min to max) is a very small change compared to 1,365 watts.

*You are a shit soaked PMS rag.*


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


You are a brainwashed dumbass.

If you cannot admit that the sun has a MASSIVE influence on the temperature of Earth, you are simply a stupid motherfucker, an imbecile, a lunatic, a Democrat, an idiot, a retard, a drug addict, and/or something of that sort.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...










Not even close silly person.  I do have a question though...  are you frothing at the mouth as you fling your poo?  Just wondering....  Here is a simple question.  Does the Sun control global temp or does CO2?

GO!


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

westwall said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Your question is stupid.  The Sun contributes an EXTRAORDINARILY STEADY 1,365 watts per square meter to the Earth's energy budget.

CO2 adds 4 watts per square meter for every 250 ppm.

Why do you hate science you buttfucking Holocaust denier?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Massive influence?  No

Its influence is a virtual constant in the climate system.

*That's why you're a fucking retard.*


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...








What mechanism does CO2 use to add that "massive" 4 watts?  How exactly does it do its magic?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

westwall said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It absorbs long wave radiation rather than allowing it to radiate back into space.  Do you deny this reality?


----------



## hjmick (Sep 13, 2016)

Why are you people bothering with this blowhard?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

hjmick said:


> Why are you people bothering with this blowhard?


Why do you deny basic science?


----------



## hjmick (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you people bothering with this blowhard?
> ...




You have no clue, none, on where I come down on the issue. Furthermore, you will never have any idea where I stand on the issue. Discussion or debate with you is meaningless, pointless, and beneath me. You are a liar. You are worthy of nothing but insults, ridicule, and disdain.


You are dismissed.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


does the sun ever stop hitting the earth surface?


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...







But what then happens to that long wave IR?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



You've been punked on Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Again. Damn you're behind on this stuff.  

TSI rose by about 1.4 W/m2 from the 1700 solar minimum to about 1965.  It REMAINED at a relative maximum until very recently showing signs of decline. That amount is about 1/2 of what it takes to explain most of the warming. 

The propaganda does everything it can to talk about sun spots and NOT true TSI measurements and proxies. They are NOT the same thing. Since the baseline AVERAGE is removed from any solar output "estimated" with mere sunspots. 

Now since the Earth is a MASSIVE thermal mass and there are lots of storage mechanisms in ocean heating -- NOTHING reaches equilibrium in a year or even 50. THat's a fact. So leaving your heater on without a thermostat to trip it -- will continue to heat the house even if the air from the heater stays the same temperature and energy. 

Only idiots plot "correlation curves" showing how well CO2 (or any other single GH variable) track over 50 or 100 years. THat's juvenile and silly.. Because for thermo system that big and that complex -- there is NO REQUIREMENT that the output has to look like the input that "created it".  Did ya get all that or do ya need some background. I can't go simpler than all that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2016)

Brambo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



Won't help.  These are the deniers you are looking to wrestle with. The rest of us have actually studied some science. There are sources on the Web that FEED this belligerence. And not even a 10th grade environmental science book would convince them..


----------



## Gracie (Sep 21, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.


It's really simple. Take a 1 acre plot and put 2 people on it. It will not affect the flora and fauna. Add 4 more people who then build houses for the 6 living there. Add 6 chimneys. Still not much affect. Add 12 more people, add animals in pens where the shit collects in bins. Add more chimneys. Install some wind turbines for energy. Dam up the creek that flows thru it. Now add 24 more people. It's starting to get a tad crowded, ain't it? Damn breaks, floods the field. Bird die from the wind power. Ground is now soiled from burying or burning the manure. The people now there each just added to their family with 2 kids per couple. Now its really crowded. Something is gonna break and my bet is it will be that acre.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



No -- actually you haven't read enough.  Thats the cyclical 11 yr cycle that you're quoting. That's not what causes solar min and maxes. I SWEAR I posted this for you last time -- but in case I didn't --- 







Don't ask me where I got this. EDUCATE yourself.. Before you embarass yourself with deniers that actually a bit of the science.   Source of the study is in the graph.  Come back when you SEE the diff between counting sun spots in 11 year cycles and TRUE TOTAL solar output variation..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2016)

Brambo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



You're missing an important point..  I think you''re referring to the forcing change for a  CO2 doubling . What you're NEGLECTING is that we have not even reached the FIRST doubling since pre-industrial times. And I KNOW for a FACT -- I;'ve been over that with you a week or so ago when I told you that a DOUBLING of CO2 ends up with a surface equilibrium change of about 1.1degC.  

So there's not BEEN a 4W/m2 change in forcing and the TSI chart I just showed you accounts for maybe 40% of the observed warming., The CO2 MIGHT account for a similar amount. 

But the deal is --- 

A) A 1.1degC surface change is NOT the catastrophic GW theory that got this pony ride started. There were all KINDS of exaggerated shit tacked on about speculated accelerations and positive feedbacks. NONE of that is "settled science". And if we GOT to 4W/m2 --- it would never make the front page. 

B) We do not KNOW what the natural climate variation WAS for the last Millions of years because tree rings and mud bug shells are NOT THERMOMETERS and they are incapable of measuring short transient warm-ups like the one we've seen since 1700s. 

So you need to swap into a dry pair of knickers and come back and tell me sanely and clearly why you're pissy and panicked about this 0.6degC change in your lifetime.. .


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 2 decade pause is the new warming




Looking at the past 4 years I could of been fooled.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 21, 2016)

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.*
> ...



The fact that you think science is propaganda shows the depth of who you're. Sad.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 21, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> ...



It hasn't raised overall since the 50's. When considering the decadal trend in solar flex.

So it can't be the reason for any warming the past 40 years.


----------



## gipper (Sep 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The fact that you think propaganda is science shows how easily the elites can dupe you.  Sad but when you grow up and hopefully mature into a thinking adult, you will realize what a dumb ass you where.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 21, 2016)

Thread is another prime example of how progressives who gravitate to the AGW alarmist theories don't connect the dots on this stuff.

They continue to think this is a debate about the science........


The science isn't mattering in the real world!! Anybody with even marginal ability to connect the dots can see it. Its not even debatable.

In 2016, nobody is caring about global warming.....and that's after 20+ years of bomb throwing by the alarmist k00ks with full media support............

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities_1.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


These polls by Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen have shown a steady decline since 2009!! Lower.................lower....................lower.( check the records yourselves s0ns). Nobody is caring........yet these bozos still think the debate is about the science, yuk, yuk!!The jarheads think that they are going to change the landscape on the thinking from nether-regions of the internet........been doing it for 20 years now.........but renewable energy is still beyond laughable and still a decidedly fringe energy!!

And we've been hearing about the 97% for how long????





Ummm...........who's not winning?



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20gif.gif.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 21, 2016)

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 2 decade pause is the new warming
> ...


Clearly.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



So -- Matthew.  I just told you WHY sunspot counts are NOT measures of TSI and you go and post data based on sunspot counts.  Are you even analyzing any of this stuff?  Sunspots are a proxy for solar activity. But there is no actual measurement of radiant flux.  So by NATURE --- they will produce curves for TSI with NO LONG TERM TRENDS.  And Solar TSI (long term average) shouldn't change much over 40 or 50 years. But a relative MAXIMUM of TSI can CONTINUE to heat the Earth -- even if doesn't increase during the period if storage mechanisms are present.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The fact that you think science is propaganda




FRAUD is not science.

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you are a science invalid who knows precisely nothing about Earth climate change.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?
> 
> If you cannot answer that question, you are a science invalid who knows precisely nothing about Earth climate change.



The fact that you keep repeating that stupid question months after it was answered by everyone tells us that YOU know nothing about science in general or climate science in particular.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?
> ...


So crick, does CO2 melt ice?


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:






Now if you don't understand what that means, we're perfectly williing to explain it to you. Just say the word.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


explain it to me, your words.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

CO2 absorbs and retransmits the frequencies of light indicated in the graphic.  The Earth, warmed by the light from the sun, transmits an infrared spectrum shown on the upper right.  Much of that IR light is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere, primarily water vapor and CO2.  That light is continuously absorbed and retreansmitted, effectively slowing its eventual escape to space.  The upper stratosphere has virtually NO water vapor but contains the same CO2 fraction as found close to the surface.  At that point, where IR energy finally escapes the planet's atmosphere, it is the level of CO2 that determines the rate.  

I repeat an analogy.  I have a large water tank into which water pours at a fixed rate.  Water can leave the tank through one exit, a pipe mounted at the tank's bottom with a valve.  The rate at which water exits the tank is controlled by two things: the depth of the water in the tank (and thus the pressure it produces at the drain) and the setting of that valve.  Let's begin with the drain valve wide open.  Water builds up in the tank until the water's depth produces sufficient pressure to produce a flow rate in the drain equal to the flow rate of the water pouring in.  We are at equilibrium.  The level of water in the tank is now stable.  Now, close the valve slightly.  The rate of flow out the drain is decreased.  The water level in the tank rises.  Eventually, it rises enough that the increased pressure at the drain drives the flow to once again match the the incoming rate.  Equilibrium - now at a greater tank depth - has been achieved.  

Does that make sense?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> CO2 absorbs and retransmits the frequencies of light indicated in the graphic.  The Earth, warmed by the light from the sun, transmits an infrared spectrum shown on the upper right.  Much of that IR light is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere, primarily water vapor and CO2.  That light is continuously absorbed and retreansmitted, effectively slowing its eventual escape to space.  The upper stratosphere has virtually NO water vapor but contains the same CO2 fraction as found close to the surface.  At that point, where IR energy finally escapes the planet's atmosphere, it is the level of CO2 that determines the rate.
> 
> I repeat an analogy.  I have a large water tank into which water pours at a fixed rate.  Water can leave the tank through one exit, a pipe mounted at the tank's bottom with a valve.  The rate at which water exits the tank is controlled by two things: the depth of the water in the tank (and thus the pressure it produces at the drain) and the setting of that valve.  Let's begin with the drain valve wide open.  Water builds up in the tank until the water's depth produces sufficient pressure to produce a flow rate in the drain equal to the flow rate of the water pouring in.  We are at equilibrium.  The level of water in the tank is now stable.  Now, close the valve slightly.  The rate of flow out the drain is decreased.  The water level in the tank rises.  Eventually, it rises enough that the increased pressure at the drain drives the flow to once again match the the incoming rate.  Equilibrium - now at a greater tank depth - has been achieved.
> 
> Does that make sense?


I don't see how that explains the graphs you provided.  I mean I can see blue, I see red, then i see grey and white and all kinds of different components.  you didn't identify any of what the graphs show.

Your analogy is useless.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> The fact that you keep repeating that stupid question months after it was answered by everyone tells us that YOU know nothing about science in general or climate science in particular.




Your side HATES that question, censors it all over the web and on TV.  Not even Fox News will ask it...

LOL!!!

That question leads to the correct answer, that the tectonic plate movement drives Earth climate change, a truth that should make you another unemployed person in Obama's economy...


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 22, 2016)

OK, crick, what percentage of sunlight (em spectrum) ENERGY is from IR??

More than UV?

More than the rest of the spectrum summed together??

LOL!!!

IR is low level energy as part of the EM spectrum, which is why "absorbing it" doesn't warm jack...


----------



## PredFan (Sep 22, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.



It's the sun stupid!

/THREAD


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 22, 2016)

We're talking about uneducated people that don't accept any of the observations. You'd get a more honest debate from a member of the taliban. I am serious.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> We're talking about uneducated people that don't accept any of the observations. You'd get a more honest debate from a member of the taliban. I am serious.




We know you dropped out in the second grade when they were talking about ice ages abd stuff...what do you want Matthew an ice age or a warming?

Its going to happen and would of happen with or with out man, regardless.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you keep repeating that stupid question months after it was answered by everyone tells us that YOU know nothing about science in general or climate science in particular.
> ...




Lmao you are an idiot ...


.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> We're talking about uneducated people that don't accept any of the observations. You'd get a more honest debate from a member of the taliban. I am serious.




This from a left wing science invalid who is TOO CHICKEN to answer the first question of Earth climate change - Jeopardy! music still playing...

Face it, if truth mattered to you, you would not support Hillary...


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

"The first question of Earth climate change"!?!?!?!???  HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAaaaaaa what a fucking JOKE.

If the truth mattered to YOU, you wouldn't be lying to us at every turn.



ps: Hillary Clinton has been fifty TIMES as honest as has Donald Trump in this campaign.  To be a Trump supporter is to proclaim out loud that you don't give a _*shit*_ about the truth.


----------



## hjmick (Sep 22, 2016)




----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2016)

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on levels of greenhouse gases increased by human emissions of CO2 and deforestation.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 23, 2016)

The only warming on planet Earth for the past 150 years is 100% about this...

Google


Otherwise, Earth climate data reads as follows


1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4, NO BREAKOUT in cane activity
5. NO sea level rise


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> "The first question of Earth climate change"!?!?!?!???  HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAaaaaaa what a fucking JOKE.
> 
> If the truth mattered to YOU, you wouldn't be lying to us at every turn.
> 
> ...


you know that's funny right?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 23, 2016)

It is two of the biggest lies he's ever posted.

That Earth ice quantity is controlled by where land is, not CO2, that is the primary driver of Earth climate change and the first question of Earth climate change. 

That crick is a left wing liar was obvious to everyone with a brain long ago...


----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
> 2. NO WARMING in the oceans
> 3. NO NET ICE MELT
> 4, NO BREAKOUT in cane activity
> 5. NO sea level rise



God are you stupid.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 23, 2016)

Fudge didn't "trump" the raw data in the British Court.  It didn't stop the NASA DATA COLLECTORS, not the "climate scientists," from telling the truth about Antarctic ice growth.  


BTW - the Arctic Sea Ice is not the only polar sea ice on Earth.  The other polar sea ice has set no less than 5 all time record highs since O took office...

As for your "sea level rise" chart, that is beyond laughable.  Start with one question -

If 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of ice every year, where is the "net ice melt" coming from?

LOL!!!


Those "combo" fudge charts are 96% surface ground (warming due to urban heat island), 2% ocean (flat line) and 2% atmosphere (flat line)...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

Brambo said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You really are clueless..

If we were near equalization, cooling would be tightly constrained at the arctic, temps near the equator would be warmer, and mid latitudes would be warmer. WITH LITTLE ATMOSPHERIC MIXING..

But this is not what we have.  We have a cooling tropical region, A cooling mid latitude, WITH MASSIVE ATMOSPHERIC MIXING resulting in a warming arctic region. The one region where heat release and cooling occur unabated by our atmosphere.

It is the heat release and massive heat loss at TOA (temperature gradient) which is driving our current arctic jet intrusions and mid latitude cooling. Now that La Niña is predominant, ocean cool phases continuing for 30-50 years, this will increase mid latitude cooling. 

And the sun is returning to levels of the Little Ice Age where the earth cooled 4 deg C in 30 years..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't know what this is let alone what it means.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > 1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
> ...



Crick once again shows his ignorance while calling someone else stupid.. Priceless..






Radiosons show NO WARMING....


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

Spencer's infamous graphic here is Grade AAAA bullshit, as explained in terms even you could follow, at

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

PS: the term is  *R A D I O S O N D E * Mr Atmospheric Physicist


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> You don't know what this is let alone what it means.



Why don't you explain it to us poor mortals Sir?


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Those "combo" fudge charts are 96% surface ground (warming due to urban heat island), 2% ocean (flat line) and 2% atmosphere (flat line)...



Let's see the data asshole.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 27, 2016)

People still not getting it...........we are far beyond the debate of who is winning in 2016. This shit has been going on for 20 years and the landscape is exactly the same as it was in 1995. Renewables still a joke because nobody wants to pay and arm and a leg for energy ( solar energy still, after a decade, provides but a paltry 1% of our electricity )

Everybody saw the debate last night........the only mentions of global warming was a joke made by Trump. Nobody takes it seriously.......every poll makes that very clear. Where the fuck do people go to bed at night saying to themselves, *"WoW.......I'm gonna wake up in the morning and completely change the landscape of the climate change debate with a post on the USMB!!". *

Really now s0n??


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 27, 2016)

Crick dude......you've been posting up the same stoopid graphics for years and years . wtf S0N?? You know.........the colorful, make your eyeballs pop out of your head dizzying ones that blind people with science!! But where is it mattering in the real world? Year after year after year, but for the AGW community, nothing ever, ever changes!! In fact......interest in this stuff has never been lower amongst the voting public and public policy on energy has been a snoozefest for years!!

So why knock yourself out daily in here year after year?

IDK? Maybe I should just look at this as a hobby for folks?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what is that proof of? Do you even know what the word means?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2016)

xband said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


so you have gotten colder?  wow, I thought this thread was on warming.  Same here in Chicago, kind of makes sense you'd be getting what we got since most systems move west to east.  So do you have a location where it's gotten warmer that you are concerned with?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.*
> ...





LOL......Im laughing about how many times I have posted up the historical drought map going back to the late 1880's..........effectively decimating the alarmist arguments on drought being related to global warming. To meh to bother at the present time......

One of the most true edicts ever made about progressives is that their entire argument always falls flat on its face when forced to answer the question, "As compared to what?". Accordingly, you will note that it is very, very rare that an alarmist in here will put anything in comparative context, like current drought. Never once has an alarmist posted up drought in a historical context in this forum......because they would effectively make themselves look like a dummy. These folks cant compete unless the presentation is fake...............

ghey


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Earth


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Brambo said:


> Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.



Remember the tobacco companies lied for decades about cigs causing cancer?  Remember they defended led as being safe and then it turns out it's not?

I/We knew the corporations/Republicans knew global warming was real, the damn liars

Utilities Knew About Climate Change Back In 1968 And Still Battled The Science | HuffPost

*Like Big Oil, power companies have long seen the danger of fossil fuels, a new report finds.*

*Wake up Republicans.*


----------



## gipper (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.
> ...


The tobacco companies analogy is fitting, but you have backwards.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


How?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2017)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...




Can you show us the data set for the deep ocean temperatures from 1880 that are accurate to a tenth of a degree?


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








He can't show us CURRENT deep ocean temp records that are accurate to a tenth of a degree.  They don't exist.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> He can't show us CURRENT deep ocean temp records that are accurate to a tenth of a degree.  They don't exist.



Of course they do. Argo floats are accurate to 0.02 C. Or was is 0.002 C?

And again, you and Frank both fail completely at basic statistics, which says that the error of an average gets smaller as you add more things to average.

Everyone familiar with the basics of science knows with 100% certainty that you and Frank get everything totally wrong. That's why the whole planet is laughing at you. There's no socialist plot. You deniers are just wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > He can't show us CURRENT deep ocean temp records that are accurate to a tenth of a degree.  They don't exist.
> ...



You have the 1880 data set?  Can you please post it?


----------



## gipper (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The tobacco companies are the warmers promoting a hoax.  You know that.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> The tobacco companies are the warmers promoting a hoax.  You know that.



The people who were paid to say smoking didn't cause cancer are now literally the same people who are being paid to deny global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The tobacco companies are the warmers promoting a hoax.  You know that.
> ...



How are you making out on locating that data set?


----------



## gipper (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The tobacco companies are the warmers promoting a hoax.  You know that.
> ...


Again...that is entirely backwards.

The people today being paid by the government to scream Global Warming are the same liars who denied tobacco smoking caused cancer.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> The people today being paid by the government to scream Global Warming are the same liars who denied tobacco smoking caused cancer.



Then you'll surely be able to name those people.

Me, I'll throw out the names Steve Milloy and Tim Ball, both paid by the tobacco industry, both now paid by the denial industry.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How are you making out on locating that data set?



How are you making out on "Get stuffed, liar."?

If you're not a dickless liar, you'll be able to tell us specifically what data set is supposed to be missing. But you won't, because you _are_ a dickless liar.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How are you making out on locating that data set?
> ...



No data, because, let me guess, you have "consensus"


----------



## gipper (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The people today being paid by the government to scream Global Warming are the same liars who denied tobacco smoking caused cancer.
> ...


Pretty much all the so called scientists paid by Uncle.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> Pretty much all the so called scientists paid by Uncle.



So specifically, which climate scientists previously said that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Name names. If you're not making it up, that should be easy.


----------



## gipper (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much all the so called scientists paid by Uncle.
> ...


Sorry but you misunderstand.


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > He can't show us CURRENT deep ocean temp records that are accurate to a tenth of a degree.  They don't exist.
> ...









There are 4000 ARGO floats, the ocean is over 400,000,000 square kilometers, so each ARGO float is supposed to tell us what the temps are for 100,000 square kilometers of ocean, roughly a square 300 kilometers on a side.  Not exactly the most precise measuring tool don't ya think?  Add to that where are they?  Are they grouped around a volcanic vent, or are they near island arcs?  There are so many variables that are not taken into account that it isn't funny.  

ARGO is a nice snapshot, of a snapshot, of the ocean temps.  But that is all they are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How are you making out on locating that data set?
> ...



Where is the data that was used to plot the temperature back in 1880?  It that clearly enough for you, Miss?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


B's. The tobacco industry denied cancer and the corporations that pollute denied led and get.

You right wingers are so fos.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 25, 2017)

The skeptics are winning.........no point in them having to make their case. Its the climate crusaders who still haven't made the case and the evidence is overwhelming and documented in the first page of this forum in a thread called *MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING*. Started in 2012 and never leaves page 1.. About 120 million links.

Dominates all threads ever started in this forum........by scores of miles. Over 500 pages and 5,300 posts........oh..........and 219,000 "views". Yuk.........yuk...........threads started by the climate crusaders last about a week at most and get about 100 posts and disappear forever. Don't take my word for it............check it out yourself s0ns!!!



Who's not winning?


----------



## gipper (Jul 26, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


You need to be honest with yourself and not merely accept what the elites and ruling class are telling you. 

Has it never occurred to you as to why believers in AGW are almost exclusively on the left, and Deniers are almost exclusively on the right?

ANSWER: Because AGW is politics, not science.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 26, 2017)

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




Yep......these shitforbrains still haven't figured that out. Nobody gives a fuck about the science...........its not mattering for dick.

Years ago I posed the question to progressives in here and it still hasn't been answered once...............

Where is the "science" mattering in the real world??


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 26, 2017)

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Ever since the left politicised it by forming the political advocacy organization known as the IPCC it is not science anymore. It's pseudoscience. And the climategate emails are proof of fraud.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The fact that you think science is propaganda shows the depth of who you're. Sad.



The fact that you mistake propaganda for science is even more troubling.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:.



Absorbs and either emits or transfers its energy on via collisions with other molecules...so what?

Lets see some actual observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that additional CO2 will alter the global climate.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you think science is propaganda shows the depth of who you're. Sad.
> ...








It is just more proof of the deplorable state to which public education has sunk.  Back when I was in high school critical thinking was essential, and it was taught rigorously.  Now, they don't want the peons able to think, makes them uppity, so they teach them about feelings, but not about critical thinking.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...


This OP demonstrates just how low it sunk, "Global Warming Deniers discuss your theories here"
As if there were such a thing as a "denier theory"  !
If there was then we would have to come up with a "denier theory" for every idiot claim made by a consensus of idiots who are convinced there are UFOs + aliens in Area 51, supernatural ectoplasm, Russians using the Spock mind meld to change how people vote and a "denier theory" for every other idiotic theory Liberals have about the economy, sanctuary cities for  illegal immigrants who commit crimes etc etc
This particular idiot wants to see a "denier theory" for global warming not just Man(n) made (as in Michael Mann) made global warming


----------

