Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote
An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.
You may want to look outside your own opinion when trying to speak for everyone else.
Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.
Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":
"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."
"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."
Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.
Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.
What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.
That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.
Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.
Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.
What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.
That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.
Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.
Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.
We can actually measure the amount of infrared radiation being emitted by the CO2 in our atmosphere. The frequency of that emission is specific to a particular gas, so we can determine which atmospheric gasses are emitting what radiation, if any.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at a much, much higher rate than oxygen or nitrogen. Worse, the quantity of infrared being emitted by CO2 is increasing as its concentrations in our atmosphere increase. These aren't future events or predictions. These are measurements being taken right now.
the mechanism for global warming. And its not a grand coincidence that CO2 levels have skyrocketed by 23% or so in only 75 years. The exact 75 years that we've been pumping enormous quantities of extra CO2 into the atmosphere on an industrial scale. An increase that far and that fast is absolutely unprecedented in 800,000 years of ice core records.
are mostly likely the cause.
The planet loses an area of rainforest the size of Costa Rica each year while the entire human race simultaneously pumps CO2 into the atmosphere 24hrs/day. China's pollution can be seen from space and there is a field of plastic trash in the Pacific ocean the size of the continental United States.
If you think that this can't have an effect on the environment then you are not a scientist.
Yet over 75 years all "trends" have remained the same, not increased despite the fact that man made co2 is literally thousands of times more today than it was 75 years ago. Again, science proves warmers wrong.
Global mean temperatures have trended upward over the last 75 years and continue to trend upward. We can point instruments up at our atmosphere (or down in the case of the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite) and measure increased rates of infrared radiation specifically from CO2.
Some of that infrared is reradiated back to the earth's surface that would have otherwise been radiated into space. Infrared radiation is one of the primary mechanisms of thermal transference. So we have a verifiable mechanism of heat transference increasing in its emissions of thermal energy back to the earth's surface....
....and an upward trend of global temperature means while more thermal energy is being emitted back to the earth's surface. Its like pouring water in a glass: you're gonna get more water in the glass.
via IR, and a measurable increase i
he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote
An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.
You may want to look outside your own opinion when trying to speak for everyone else.
Overwhelming evidence works just as well. Better even.Says you, citing yourself.
Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.
That's what propaganda will do. Sway public opinion.
Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.
Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.
well your side. Ummmm....the models!!!!!!!
That's easy.I have three problems with global warming alarmism.
#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.
And I'm supposed to believe computer models telling me what the climate is going to be in 50 freaking years?
#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?
And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?
Give them quizzillions in tax dollars to watch our elected officials and left wing whacko global warming freaks do a circle jerk with all our cash?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
And drum roll......
ta da!
#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
It's difficult to believe that anyone can be as ignorant as you are regarding climate and weather, and the difference between the two.
Check it out! A big list o' losers, conveniently compiled in one spot. I'd like to thank all of them, for allowing me the opportunity to carve so many notches in my virtual 'tard-smacking stick. I actually had to retire the original stick, as all that notching had nearly worn it through. Don't worry, I replaced it with a much beefier model. Denier 'tards are getting dumber, so it takes more emphatic whacks to their virtual noggins to knock sense into them. And if I can't knock sense into them, it's still good fun just to hear them cry.
FlaCalTenn
Crusader Frank
Westwall
SSDD
Daveman
Ian
Henry Bough
ToddPatriot
Bripat
Freewill
jc456
Political Chick
Longknife
Mr H
Polar Bear
An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.
Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.
Says you, citing yourself.
Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.
Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.
What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.
That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.
Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.
Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.
Oh.....and then theres this >>>>
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html
Coming up soon on 100,000 views!!! Well over 3,000 posts!!! HUGE k00k losing!!!
Throwing a party in here when that baby hits 100,000 views!! DeCiMaTiOn!!!
Have to thank my skeptic pals in here for making it happen too.........
FlaCalTenn
Crusader Frank
Westwall
SSDD
Daveman
Ian
Henry Bough
ToddPatriot
Bripat
Freewill
jc456
Political Chick
Longknife
Mr H
Polar Bear
Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.
Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":
"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."
"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."
Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News
