250 Peer Reviewed Papers in 2015 Alone Cast Doubt on AGW Hypothesis

[CrusaderFrank]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

 

[jc456]

I suspect he has a much better idea than do you - and your comment only supports the idea.

We both know she's too stupid to understand what she posted. Your comment supports the idea that you're a liar.

Rightwinger is one of the more intelligent posters on the board. Guess this means that you are the stupid one.

Only the stupid believe rightwinger is intelligent.

Calling intelligent people stupid does not make it so, it only shows your own ignorance.

so that goes right back at you correct? just cause you say one poster is or isn't doesn't make it so. So, stalemate mate. So do you have anything to add on the topic? Do you have the AGW Hypothesis?

I love you libturds when you post your rants and then expect like you're above your own comments. too funny dude.

 

[mamooth]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

You were the only one who said it something like "the CO2 mankind put in the air causes global warming"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

 

[mamooth]

Frank, don't be absurd. There are hundreds of papers confirming how CO2 acts in the lab, and I gave 6 papers confirming how it acts the same way in the atmosphere. If you're just going ignore all the evidence, it means you're trolling.

 

[elektra]

Frank, don't be absurd. There are hundreds of papers confirming how CO2 acts in the lab, and I gave 6 papers confirming how it acts the same way in the atmosphere. If you're just going ignore all the evidence, it means you're trolling.

6 papers confirming how CO2 acts in the atmosphere, you mean acting as in a "tragedy"? First and foremost, theories confirm nothing. But of more importance, of the over 2000 scientists who have studied this for years, how come there are only 6 papers?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, don't be absurd. There are hundreds of papers confirming how CO2 acts in the lab, and I gave 6 papers confirming how it acts the same way in the atmosphere. If you're just going ignore all the evidence, it means you're trolling.

Can you link to one (1) showing the relation between 120PPM CO2 and temperature?

 

[elektra]

Frank, don't be absurd. There are hundreds of papers confirming how CO2 acts in the lab, and I gave 6 papers confirming how it acts the same way in the atmosphere. If you're just going ignore all the evidence, it means you're trolling.

How about linking to your "papers", here where you make the claim. I can't wait for this, I bet you do not link to one study, I will check back and see.

 

[mamooth]

Elektra, don't keep getting obsessive over people and having these constant meltdowns just because I and others debunked your crazy fabrications about Arctic sea ice increasing. You tried pushing a fraud, you got caught. End of story.

Your claims concerning me have been equally dishonest. For example, I linked directly to the actual paper being discussed, but here you claimed I didn't.

The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

And you just said I hadn't posted links to papers demonstrating CO2 absorptoin effects in the atmosphere, when I recently did so right here.

A question about the accuracy of science

As far as lab experiments go, the HITRAN database alone list about 100 papers for references on the spectral absorption properties of CO2. Those all came from lab experiments.

HITRAN

You'll note HITRAN was put together by the Air Force. If they've got the science totally wrong, none of the seeker heads on the IR homing missiles the military uses will work. Their ballistic missile launch detection satellites wouldn't work. Yet ... they do. Your conspiracy theory has some problems.

 

[elektra]

Elektra, don't keep getting obsessive over people and having these constant meltdowns just because I and others debunked your crazy fabrications about Arctic sea ice increasing. You tried pushing a fraud, you got caught. End of story.

Your claims concerning me have been equally dishonest. For example, I linked directly to the actual paper being discussed, but here you claimed I didn't.

The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

And you just said I hadn't posted links to papers demonstrating CO2 absorptoin effects in the atmosphere, when I recently did so right here.

A question about the accuracy of science

As far as lab experiments go, the HITRAN database alone list about 100 papers for references on the spectral absorption properties of CO2. Those all came from lab experiments.

HITRAN

You'll note HITRAN was put together by the Air Force. If they've got the science totally wrong, none of the seeker heads on the IR homing missiles the military uses will work. Their ballistic missile launch detection satellites wouldn't work. Yet ... they do. Your conspiracy theory has some problems.

No, you linked to the abstract
Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era

Now how about linking to those 6 papers, you stated you have 6 specific papers that confirm CO2, Great, link those papers here, and quote the paragraph that states fact, not theory, but fact.

You are familiar with your studies, your papers, so it will be real easy for you to go to the relevant paragraph. So instead of making claims in this thread and directing us to a link, that will take us to another link, how about actually quoting, otherwise you are simply dictating what you expect others to believe.

That is not proving your knowledge mamoot, not in the least bit. So quote what you believe, and lets see. Here in this thread where you are making claims.

Quotes from papers, oh, and out of those 6 links, 4 are of abstracts. There is one paper that may be of interest and the last would be simply a little expansion of the work of Giggs and Harris, so technically speaking you only have one, "Study".

But feel free to quote that one study, of the portion you believe makes your point.

6 papers, hardly maMOOT, hardly.

 

[jc456]

Frank, don't be absurd. There are hundreds of papers confirming how CO2 acts in the lab, and I gave 6 papers confirming how it acts the same way in the atmosphere. If you're just going ignore all the evidence, it means you're trolling.

well since I'm too stupid to comprehend what I read, why don't you post up in english how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is from your experiments you posted, cause dude/dudette, I didn't see that in any post of yours EVAH!!!!!

 

[jc456]

We both know she's too stupid to understand what she posted. Your comment supports the idea that you're a liar.

Rightwinger is one of the more intelligent posters on the board. Guess this means that you are the stupid one.

Only the stupid believe rightwinger is intelligent.

Calling intelligent people stupid does not make it so, it only shows your own ignorance.

Of course, Right Winger is a moron, so I haven't done that. Morons can't distinguish other morons from intelligent people.They don't know the stuff other people are spouting is moronic.

I am aware that what you are spouting is moronic.

but like you said, that just doesn't make it so cause you posted it. Funny, you opened up the box and I'll enjoy the contents at every opportunity.

Now how about that hypothesis, you got one yet? It is the topic of the thread. Can we get to that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Elektra, don't keep getting obsessive over people and having these constant meltdowns just because I and others debunked your crazy fabrications about Arctic sea ice increasing. You tried pushing a fraud, you got caught. End of story.

Your claims concerning me have been equally dishonest. For example, I linked directly to the actual paper being discussed, but here you claimed I didn't.

The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

And you just said I hadn't posted links to papers demonstrating CO2 absorptoin effects in the atmosphere, when I recently did so right here.

A question about the accuracy of science

As far as lab experiments go, the HITRAN database alone list about 100 papers for references on the spectral absorption properties of CO2. Those all came from lab experiments.

HITRAN

You'll note HITRAN was put together by the Air Force. If they've got the science totally wrong, none of the seeker heads on the IR homing missiles the military uses will work. Their ballistic missile launch detection satellites wouldn't work. Yet ... they do. Your conspiracy theory has some problems.

Tell me snagletooth, You post up a bunch of horse crap about models and how they must be right, as the military uses them yet you fail to show us how their predictive powers. Come on snagletooth, show us the predictive powers stage of theroy falsification for all of your models.

Every single GCM (Global Climate Model) used today by the military and every other government agency fails inside of 36 hours. This means that they still dont have a clue how the system works and therefore can not quantify the necessary items to make the models work..

GIGO...

The models are only as good as the understanding and knowledge of those programming them. They still dont know the right questions to ask.

 

[IanC]

another 48 papers on natural variation rather than CO2 induced, just from 2016. someone left the door open.

2016: Already Almost 50 New Peer-Reviewed Papers Refuting Alarmist CO2 Science …Show Natural Cycles Indisputable!

 

[mamooth]

Tell me snagletooth, You post up a bunch of horse crap about models and how they must be right, as the military uses them yet you fail to show us how their predictive powers. Come on snagletooth, show us the predictive powers stage of theroy falsification for all of your models.
Every single GCM (Global Climate Model) used today by the military and every other government agency fails inside of 36 hours. This means that they still dont have a clue how the system works and therefore can not quantify the necessary items to make the models work..

That Air Force "model" has been detecting recent missile launches from North Korea.

You claim that's not possible, as all such models are totally wrong.

You're obviously profoundly stupid and delusional, just another cult nutter for everyone to laugh at.

 

[mamooth]

No, you linked to the abstract

And if you click "full text" on that page, you get the full paper.

You're just lying about me now, so you're not worth wasting time on, as you'll just lie in response to anything. To "win", I just have to point out you're lying, and I have. Buh-bye.

 

[mamooth]

another 48 papers on natural variation rather than CO2 induced, just from 2016. someone left the door open.

You mean another 48 papers that your kook blogger lied about.

All of those papers I scanned talked about natural variability some time in the past. None of them said natural variability was driving the current warming.

That kind of dishonesty might play well with the cult, but it won't fool anyone else.

 

[elektra]

[Q

UOTE="elektra, post: 13599048, member: 46310"]No, you linked to the abstract

And if you click "full text" on that page, you get the full paper.

You're just lying about me now, so you're not worth wasting time on, as you'll just lie in response to anything. To "win", I just have to point out you're lying, and I have. Buh-bye.[/QUOTE]
Lying about you? I will lie to "win", all you have to say is I am a liar? And you win? And there you have the classic example of a Liberal Democrat Dictator. Talk about thee most pathetic responses, I feel like I have done wrong by Old Crock after reading maMOOT's response. Unbelievable.

maMOOT, you got much nerve, more ignorance, too much arrogance, and zero knowledge other than googled headlines. You do not even read your links, nor understand what an abstract is, seeing how you can not recognize the full text of an abstract when you yourself post one.

Pathetic

No, you get the full abstract, about 14 paragraphs. It states abstract right at the top. Let us try a screen shot.
Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era

 

[mamooth]

No, you get the full abstract, about 14 paragraphs. It states abstract right at the top. Let us try a screen shot.

Everyone else sees the full paper.

It appears you've gone totally unhinged because your browser isn't working right.

Try fixing it.