Are there any liberal still worried about global warming?

[konradv]

Well since CO2 is a very very negligible percentage of the atmosphere, and since it has been proven time and again that all of the models about global warming were 100% wrong, and since I just happen to know that 50% of 100% is a 50% reduction over what would have happened if the CO2 did not initially absorb said IR.... I'm gonna take an wild guess that the amount of change the increase in C02 has caused probably can't be measured with any certainty.

You should probably note that CO2 is not the only part of the atmosphere that can absorb IR. Thus, from my engineering, statistics, and math background I find it odd that global warming models relied upon increases in CO2 to have such a dramatic effect on the mean temperature. Seems to me it would be more of a no-op given the small percentage of CO2 compared to all other greenhouse gases, like water. But if you have to make me guess what it does.. I'd say CO2 probably does what H20 does in the atmosphere.... it causes global cooling. Everyone knows it's cooler under a cloud than it is under direct sunlight. The question isn't even worth arguing about.

All you're proving is that a little bit knowledge is a dangerous thing. No one who knows anything about science would claim that something is 100% wrong. Then you go and admit that you're going to take a wild guess?!?! You might as well have said "now I'm going to talk out of my ass".

Anyone who knows the subject knows CO2 isn't the only substance to absorb IR, so don't think you're suddenly enlightening anyone. As a matter of fact, any rise in temp that does happen would lead to more H2O in the atmosphere sand even higher temps, i.e.positive feedback. Then you go and make a guess and since you don't really understand the topic, guess WRONG. H2O can lead to cooling because of cloud formation. CO2 doesn't form clouds. What's not worth arguing about is the level of your understanding. Anyone in the know would have to admit it's near zero.

 

[EconChick]

Yep, no evidence anywhere to be found. All based on faulty computer models.

 

[Rikurzhen]

 

[konradv]

I want you AGW partisan alarmists to explain to me how fossil fuel farming contributes to your AGW theory.

First give us an outline as to what fossil fuel farming is.,

Harvesting fossil fuel resources from out of the ground. Like oil and coal. How does that contribute to AGW theory?

I smell someone trying to set up a "gotcha". If you've got a point make it. This like the opponents of evolutionary theory asking why this happened or that happened. They really don't want to know, they're trying to set a trap. I'm afraid you're not clever enough to pull that one off here, sorry.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I want you AGW partisan alarmists to explain to me how fossil fuel farming contributes to your AGW theory.

First give us an outline as to what fossil fuel farming is.,

Harvesting fossil fuel resources from out of the ground. Like oil and coal. How does that contribute to AGW theory?

I smell someone trying to set up a "gotcha". If you've got a point make it. This like the opponents of evolutionary theory asking why this happened or that happened. They really don't want to know, they're trying to set a trap. I'm afraid you're not clever enough to pull that one off here, sorry.

I asked a very simple question. How does fossil fuel extraction contribute to AGW?

 

[konradv]

I myself try not to make predictions, just explain the science. It doesn't change my opinion, if some makes a bad one. I require data and logic.

 

[konradv]

I want you AGW partisan alarmists to explain to me how fossil fuel farming contributes to your AGW theory.

First give us an outline as to what fossil fuel farming is.,

Harvesting fossil fuel resources from out of the ground. Like oil and coal. How does that contribute to AGW theory?

I smell someone trying to set up a "gotcha". If you've got a point make it. This like the opponents of evolutionary theory asking why this happened or that happened. They really don't want to know, they're trying to set a trap. I'm afraid you're not clever enough to pull that one off here, sorry.

I asked a very simple question. How does fossil fuel extraction contribute to AGW?

What difference does it make?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I myself try not to make predictions, just explain the science. It doesn't change my opinion, if some makes a bad one. I require data and logic.

Just explain the science? I know the science. The problem is that we're dealing with a system. Pull on one string and something else changes. The science which works in isolation in a lab experiment OBVIOUSLY doesn't translate too well to climate, hence the faulty predictions. Let's also be clear about one other point - most of what constitutes climate science is computer modeling. The foundational level science is physic, chemistry, etc. When chemistry is applied the outcome is assured. That's science that holds up. That's not climate science. Much of what gets published as climate science is modeling. What you're doing is trading on the reputation of science when you're actually arguing modeling.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I want you AGW partisan alarmists to explain to me how fossil fuel farming contributes to your AGW theory.

First give us an outline as to what fossil fuel farming is.,

Harvesting fossil fuel resources from out of the ground. Like oil and coal. How does that contribute to AGW theory?

I smell someone trying to set up a "gotcha". If you've got a point make it. This like the opponents of evolutionary theory asking why this happened or that happened. They really don't want to know, they're trying to set a trap. I'm afraid you're not clever enough to pull that one off here, sorry.

I asked a very simple question. How does fossil fuel extraction contribute to AGW?

What difference does it make?

That's my question to you. Your highly politicized and gov-subsidized perspective on the issue of alleged AGW is at the source of fossil fuel extraction restriction. How does it contribute to AGW?

 

[konradv]

I want you AGW partisan alarmists to explain to me how fossil fuel farming contributes to your AGW theory.

First give us an outline as to what fossil fuel farming is.,

Harvesting fossil fuel resources from out of the ground. Like oil and coal. How does that contribute to AGW theory?

I smell someone trying to set up a "gotcha". If you've got a point make it. This like the opponents of evolutionary theory asking why this happened or that happened. They really don't want to know, they're trying to set a trap. I'm afraid you're not clever enough to pull that one off here, sorry.

I asked a very simple question. How does fossil fuel extraction contribute to AGW?

What difference does it make?

That's my question to you. Your highly politicized and gov-subsidized perspective on the issue of alleged AGW is at the source of fossil fuel extraction restriction. How does it contribute to AGW?

Why do you ask? It's a topic that I don't have as much knowledge about and smacks of a diversion from the main topic. Why won't you answer the question about what the point of this exercise is? If it seems logical, I might make a stab at it, but to repeat it smells like a "gotcha" opportunity. Even more so since you're being cagey about your reasons.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The AGW agenda is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. You act like an expert. Tell me why the two issues must be connected. Simple question.

 

[rdean]

Historic U.S. drought will continue into spring and summer experts say - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post

Drought continues in Kansas KSN-TV

Drought Continues to Worsen in California and Western States

Everything is just FIIIIINE!

 

[konradv]

The AGW agenda is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. You act like an expert. Tell me why the two issues must be connected. Simple question.

It sounds like you're the one with the political agenda. I'm just about the science. Why don't YOU explain it to us.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

 

[konradv]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

None of my analysis has involved the extraction system. Show me where I've mentioned it. If I'm dodging anything, it's participation in a little "gotcha" game you have planned. You're the one that's dodging the question of what the point is, since I'm going to need more information to even attempt to answer it. If it's such a simple question, you should be able to answer it for all of us. You haven't believed any answers I've posted previously, so why are you suddenly putting so much importance on this one?

 

[80zephyr]

Why don't we face the facts? In reality, climate science has to be one of the most complex topics on Earth. We haven't really studied it long enough to know all the variables that make up the climate system. Our knowledge on climate is analogous to doing brain surgery using a stone knife and chicken entrails. Predicting what will happen is a fools errand.

Mark

 

[konradv]

Why don't we face the facts? In reality, climate science has to be one of the most complex topics on Earth. We haven't really studied it long enough to know all the variables that make up the climate system. Our knowledge on climate is analogous to doing brain surgery using a stone knife and chicken entrails. Predicting what will happen is a fools errand.

So were going to the moon, heart transplants and curing cancer. It doesn't mean you quit.

 

[80zephyr]

Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change

Iol, a little to late for that bullshit.

Only too late if you can explain what happens the energy that rising CO2 traps. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Lol. It is incumbent on the person who makes claims to back them up. Since "science" is wrong about global warming, as shown by the evidence, it might also mean that there is no energy being trapped as suggested since if it were, it would indeed cause warming.

It's a well known fact and easily shown with a basic lab spectrophotometer that CO2 absorbs in the IR range, ergo you just admitted that CO2 does cause warming.

Great. Then show me whe

Why don't we face the facts? In reality, climate science has to be one of the most complex topics on Earth. We haven't really studied it long enough to know all the variables that make up the climate system. Our knowledge on climate is analogous to doing brain surgery using a stone knife and chicken entrails. Predicting what will happen is a fools errand.

So were going to the moon, heart transplants and curing cancer. It doesn't mean you quit.

No one said we should quit trying to understand our climate. But, we should admit that we are just into the first steps of the process.

Real science doesn't claim to have the answers when they know they don't have the understanding to get those answers.

Mark

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah so... It seems the experts agree with me:

American Chemical Society

The main driver is clouds, not C02. Thus the question is what happens to clouds when CO2 increases. So far it would appear that the slight increase in temp, results in more clouds where it's hotter and water sources are present resulting in cooler temperatures. With the exception being in winter months when clouds can actually act as a blanket. Wait isn't that good too? Why is warmer winters and cooler summers bad? Maybe this global warming, if it does happen, will be a good thing for us all.

 

[rdean]

Hmm, who to believe? Scientists or people who think the earth is only thousands of years old? Scientists with fossils or people who believe we were shimmered into being from a pile of dirt.

Such a difficult choice.