16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[Saigon]

No, Boss, that was NOT the famous hockey stick graph, this is the hockey stick graph:

But by all means take a look at 2 different graphs:

There is endless amounts of material available, produced all over the world as a result of entirely independent research.

How much evidence do you need?

How long can you just sit there, refusing to read or listen or research, and just repeating the same nonsense about CO2 not being harmful?!

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

 

[ScienceRocks]

No, Boss, that was NOT the famous hockey stick graph, this is the hockey stick graph:

But by all means take a look at 2 different graphs:

There is endless amounts of material available, produced all over the world as a result of entirely independent research.

How much evidence do you need?

How long can you just sit there, refusing to read or listen or research, and just repeating the same nonsense about CO2 not being harmful?!

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

I ask that same question about the crime stat's from a endless supply of sources from the fbi, doj and police stations. I agree that people should take the data seriously.

 

[Boss]

I'm not refusing anything, the last graphic you show, is the one for 400k years, and it clearly shows similar spikes in CO2 levels, long before human industrialization. So you simply have not shown me anything to indicate human industrialization has caused the spike in CO2. If anything, the graph proves that the Earth is resilient and can handle these spikes, because it always has before.

CO2 is not harmful, I'm sorry you don't believe that. CO2 is a vital compound element needed for plants to live. It is made up of Carbon, the most abundant element in the universe, and the basis for all things living, and Oxygen. It is a trace gas in our atmosphere, and poses no threat whatsoever to humans. The fact that it is one of many greenhouse gases, does not mean that man's emissions cause global climate change. You've shown us NO EVIDENCE of this, and you can't, because it does not exist.

You are attempting to scare people. Really dumb and stupid people who probably failed high school chemistry and were not very good in science. These people buy your scare tactics and are intimidated by your "scientific findings" which are nothing more than propaganda. You're hoping to keep the momentum going, to continue to prey on the gullible and stupid long enough, to be able to foster a political initiative. Your goal is to punish corporations and industries with a 'carbon offset' tax, which will do absolutely nothing to eliminate CO2 emissions. It WILL cost millions of jobs, and destroy economies.

Now, why don't you people just come out and admit that you hate industrialization and corporations, and this is all about making them pay for being greedy capitalist pigs? Well, it's because you know that message would be rejected, so you resort to lies and manipulation. You've been exposed, called out for being the charlatans you are, and your so-called theory has been discredited. Found to be full of fraudulent data and manipulated statistics, designed to promote your agenda. Yet... here you still are!

Have you no shame?

 

[Boss]

No, Boss, that was NOT the famous hockey stick graph, this is the hockey stick graph:

Oh, it's more detailed but it's the same information you posted. It fails to look at anything beyond 1,000-2,000 years ago, which is why you don't see the other relative similar spikes which have occurred. You want to IGNORE those, and pretend the Earth began 2,000 years ago, and things have been pretty much "normal" with CO2 until recently, where we've had this massive increase that can only be explained by human industrialization. THIS IS FRAUD! Do you not comprehend me?

 

[Saigon]

Boss -

Putting you on ignore mode now.

Get back to us when you can at least figure out the basics - and understanding where CO2 fits is this discussion as as basic as it gets.

It maybe that one of the slightly better informed deniers/sceptics like Ian or Flac can explain that kind of thing to you, but as long as you refuse to read or listen, I'm not going to bother.

 

[PredFan]

Guys, you aren't going to change any minds here. They are desciples of the Church of Global Warming and they are hard and fast fanatics.

Just point at them and laugh. That's all one can do.

 

[Saigon]

Guys, you aren't going to change any minds here. They are desciples of the Church of Global Warming and they are hard and fast fanatics.

Just point at them and laugh. That's all one can do.

Says the person who dismisses the past 20 years of science without having read a single research paper.

 

[westwall]

No, Boss, that was NOT the famous hockey stick graph, this is the hockey stick graph:

But by all means take a look at 2 different graphs:

There is endless amounts of material available, produced all over the world as a result of entirely independent research.

How much evidence do you need?

How long can you just sit there, refusing to read or listen or research, and just repeating the same nonsense about CO2 not being harmful?!

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

And they have ALL been proven false because they all used the same shitty data. Why don't you post the new Briffa graph? Hmmmm? I dare you!

 

[westwall]

Boss -

Putting you on ignore mode now.

Get back to us when you can at least figure out the basics - and understanding where CO2 fits is this discussion as as basic as it gets.

It maybe that one of the slightly better informed deniers/sceptics like Ian or Flac can explain that kind of thing to you, but as long as you refuse to read or listen, I'm not going to bother.

Yes, anyone who uses logic to demolish your juvenile simplistic views of science and the world around us should be ignored.

What a silly little boy you are...

 

[Boss]

Boss -

Putting you on ignore mode now.

Get back to us when you can at least figure out the basics - and understanding where CO2 fits is this discussion as as basic as it gets.

It maybe that one of the slightly better informed deniers/sceptics like Ian or Flac can explain that kind of thing to you, but as long as you refuse to read or listen, I'm not going to bother.

I know the basics, and understand where CO2 fits in this discussion. I haven't refused to listen or read, I took your very own graphs and data, and showed you where CO2 has spiked numerous times in Earth's history, in a time way before industrialization. You can't explain this, nor can you prove that the current spike is caused by man. You keep making argumentative statements that are simple-minded and stupid, and that no one is arguing with. We all know and understand that climate changes happen, we all understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We can look at the statistical data and see that CO2 levels have risen, but we can look and see they have also fallen, and there wasn't a damn liberal idiot around to punish industry and cause that to happen. When we look at the sheer science and physics, the Sun has far more to do with these periodic spikes in CO2 than anything man is doing. AND, when there IS a dramatic spike, there is no cataclysmic consequence, the median temperatures rise for a short period, then return to normal. There are also events which cause the median temperatures to drop for a short period, and again, the Earth is resilient, and nature finds a way to balance itself. This has gone on for 4.5 billion years, and we didn't have Al Gore around most of that time, telling us what he thinks we all need to do.

You can ignore me, I don't really give two shits. You can't ignore the fact that you are an idiot who has been duped by charlatans and alarmists. You are a modern day Chicken Little!

 

[PredFan]

Guys, you aren't going to change any minds here. They are desciples of the Church of Global Warming and they are hard and fast fanatics.

Just point at them and laugh. That's all one can do.

Says the person who dismisses the past 20 years of science without having read a single research paper.

(Points at you)...ha ha!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

I love it when you claim that a government is NOT conservative simply because it fits your agenda.

I can list 10 countries off the top of my head with clearly, openly conservative governments who fund climate research. Why do you deny it?

We both know why - the whole basis of denial is political. The FACT that most conservative politicians understand climate science makes you look ridiculous.

There are no conservative governments any more than there are liberal ones. The politicians getting elected to governments might appear conservative, or liberal, to you, but they are usually power hungry potential tyrants. It is not my fault you don't understand this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have been presented with legitimate data to show there is absolutely nothing abnormal about spikes in atmospheric CO2,

Seriously?

Do you HONESTLY think this looks like some normal cyclical change? Honestly?

I think we both know that you don't think that.

I'm bored with you continually hurling insults at people and acting like you have some kind of special insight the rest of us just don't have

But he does have insight you don't have, because he has read more than you have. It isn't special - most people have read this stuff well enough not to post that CO2 is harmless, anyway.

You seem to have a problem with words, so I will try using pictures.

This does not look normal to me because I expect things like this to have eight tentacles.

Your graph, on the other hand, looks neither normal, nor abnormal, because I have no expectations about CO2 spikes because I don't see them very often. In fact, this is the only one anyone who is alive has ever seen. No honest person can look at it and call it abnormal or unprecedented because honest people know they don't know everything.

We do know that there were previous spikes in CO@, and previous valleys. We know that there are cycles that take thousands of years, and that the last one predated the entire history of human civilization.

In other words, until you can produce a graph of every previous spike, and compare them to the current one, you cannot say the things you keep saying.

 

[mamooth]

We can look at the statistical data and see that CO2 levels have risen, but we can look and see they have also fallen, and there wasn't a damn liberal idiot around to punish industry and cause that to happen

And again, that's retard logic on your part, assuming the present must act exactly like the past, even when conditions in the present are wildly different.

When we look at the sheer science and physics, the Sun has far more to do with these periodic spikes in CO2 than anything man is doing.

Totally wrong, consistent with your ignorance of all the science. The sun has zilch to do with the current CO2 level increase. Isotope ratios prove humans caused the CO2 level increase. That's not open for debate by any rational human, any more than the round earth theory is. You don't get to rewrite the most basic science just because it contradicts your cult's dogma. Sure, you'll keep trying to do so, but you'll justifiably be laughed at.

and we didn't have Al Gore around most of that time, telling us what he thinks we all need to do.

And when you demonize Al gore, you further reveal yourself as a cultist. People who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, babble about Al Gore. And you top off your Gore-fixation with some nutball conspiracy theories about the great socialist menace, further illustrating your obvious cult affiliation. Did you really think you're the first right-wing-fringe-crank-cultist to try to pull the "I'm so independent!" charade? We've seen that song and dance many times before, and it doesn't get better with repetition.

 

[mamooth]

Yep, real science crosses all spectrums.

And based on your postings here, both you and flac suck hard at all science across all spectrums.

Sure, you talk about your successes, but in this forum, you two just parrot debunked nonsense. When you do try to think, you toss out some idiot bad logic that leaves everyone else kind of open-mouthed, astonished that anyone could have typed something that stupid and said "Damn that's good! I'll post that now!".

Oh, cherrypicking one engineer to declare all engineers are brilliant would be an example of the really awful logic which I keep pointing out is the hallmark of most denialists. Maybe they can do math, but they almost all fail at the common sense needed to set up the problem. Flac, thanks for proving my point there.

 

[westwall]

Yep, real science crosses all spectrums.

And based on your postings here, both you and flac suck hard at all science across all spectrums.

Sure, you talk about your successes, but in this forum, you two just parrot debunked nonsense. When you do try to think, you toss out some idiot bad logic that leaves everyone else kind of open-mouthed, astonished that anyone could have typed something that stupid and said "Damn that's good! I'll post that now!".

Oh, cherrypicking one engineer to declare all engineers are brilliant would be an example of the really awful logic which I keep pointing out is the hallmark of most denialists. Maybe they can do math, but they almost all fail at the common sense needed to set up the problem. Flac, thanks for proving my point there.

Funny. I seem to recall you warmist hacks being found guilty of all sorts of ignorant postings. I can't recall a single sceptic point being debunked. I CAN recall a whole library full of your assertions being laid waste.

 

[mamooth]

It would help your credibility there if you could actually point to my assertions being laid waste, instead of just claiming it happens. Just as you always call me a liar, but have never been able to point any actual lie on my part.

In general, it would help if you'd simply lay off the personal attacks that are present in every response you make to me. Yeah, I nailed you there, but that was after weeks of being civil and getting constant abuse in return, so you had it coming.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It would help your credibility there if you could actually point to my assertions being laid waste, instead of just claiming it happens. Just as you always call me a liar, but have never been able to point any actual lie on my part.

In general, it would help if you'd simply lay off the personal attacks that are present in every response you make to me. Yeah, I nailed you there, but that was after weeks of being civil and getting constant abuse in return, so you had it coming.

How about your assertion that I have everything wrong? I asked you to show me where the temp has gone up because of the feedback poop between CO2 and water vapor, which would have resulted in an increase of over 1 degree already.

 

[westwall]

It would help your credibility there if you could actually point to my assertions being laid waste, instead of just claiming it happens. Just as you always call me a liar, but have never been able to point any actual lie on my part.

In general, it would help if you'd simply lay off the personal attacks that are present in every response you make to me. Yeah, I nailed you there, but that was after weeks of being civil and getting constant abuse in return, so you had it coming.

"I was a nuclear watch officer" Ring a bell?

 

[flacaltenn]

QW -

I love it when you claim that a government is NOT conservative simply because it fits your agenda.

I can list 10 countries off the top of my head with clearly, openly conservative governments who fund climate research. Why do you deny it?

We both know why - the whole basis of denial is political. The FACT that most conservative politicians understand climate science makes you look ridiculous.

Keep dreaming guy. It really is funny...

I'm LMAO at the prospect of getting RDean in here for a grudge match with Saigon about how "conservatives don't do science".. I'd pay BIG BUCKS for that match-up..

All of sudden -- Saigon is just in love with the idea of conservatives doing "his" science.

Them guys gots to get their story straight..