Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[Flopper]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

Climate Science is Science but it's not an exact science when it comes to forecasting. There is a ton of evidence that the climate is changing and greenhouse gases are responsible.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The problem with natural variability is it does not explain the observed relationship between rising CO2 levels and temperature.

How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural

Whats up with you guys not admitting deforestation in the southern hemisphere is on par with burning fossil fuel?

Deforestation has been responsible for almost as much greenhouse gases as fossil fuels. In fact it's listed in the IPCC reports and reforestation is part of the plan for combating rising greenhouse levels. However, the problem with reforesting is so much of the land has been converted to farms, villages, and towns, it is a much more difficult job than converting part of our fossil fuel usage to alternative fuel sources. Converting hundreds of millions of acres of farm land that has been in production for many decades to forest would create food shortages and displace a lot of people. However, there are plans to reforest but not on a huge scale.

 

[AZGAL]

all this "debate" on "climate change" is about as dumb as any waste of time and brain cells...what is important is gratitude for the greatness of mother nature and acting with respect in our footprint here...

 

[AZGAL]

some farms WERE forests so it would be a matter of returning them back...

 

[Flopper]

some farms WERE forests so it would be a matter of returning them back...

There are 349 million acres of land in US being cultivated. How much of it should be converted to forest and how do we replace the food grown there?

 

[Leo123]

If humans are able to affect the Earth to such an extent that Earth's climate actually changes, then, since the Earth is located in a Galaxy, and the Galaxy exists in the Universe, I think we could be dealing with man-caused Universe Change. LOL

 

[Leo123]

some farms WERE forests so it would be a matter of returning them back...

There are 349 million acres of land in US being cultivated. How much of it should be converted to forest and how do we replace the food grown there?

There is 15.77 Billion acres of habitable land area on the Earth. I think we have enough room for everyone. When it comes to humans vs. Earth's size and power, we are insignificant. Better to be concerned about our own survival than pompously thinking we can control anything on the planet.

 

[Crick]

Does that mean you do not think humans are responsible for global warming?

 

[SSDD]

No Evidence
#106 True, I don't believe quantum mechanics as a whole.
When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

Set T and TC to the same number...P=0...So safety the Stefan -Boltzman law. I rest my case.

The [S-B] equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool.

See the above equation...it is a description of a one way gross energy movement.

Equipartition theory doesn't work in the atmosphere.

Not going through all this again...see the previous times you lost this discussion because you could provide no actual observed evidence to support your models.

#118 Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization.

100+ years on, physics still can't even agree on what QM means.

No Evidence
#826 Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question

Sorry you don't know that....and even when you have been told multiple times, you refuse to believe it. Unfortunate, but that's just how it is when you are a dupe.

No Evidence
#888 the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement do you think predicts spontaneous two way energy flow?

No Evidence
#1048 What you call "modern" physics is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...

Refer to all the previous times you lost this discussion because you could provide no observed, measured evidence to support your models.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
#754 So what if the 2nd law violates Quantum Mechanics.

QM is a theory...The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law. Let me know when they strike out the second law of thermodynamics and replace it with QM.

#755 There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Nothing there suggests net energy exchange.

That equation describes a gross one way energy exchange.

#769 the frequency of gamma radiation makes it hotter than anything you might find in the infrared spectrum even though you could hold the emitter in your hand.

I attempted to explain the difference between frequency and temperature...sorry you didn't get it...sorry your argument is so weak that you have to lie about what I said in an attempt to sound rational. Unfortunate...but then you are a dupe..what do you expect?

#117 Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?
His response to my statement:You can't get more spontaneous than radioactivity.

The discussion was regarding radium paint on watch faces..your claim was that the light was spontaneous...turned out to not be true, because the radium only emits light when it has been exposed to light. Keep it in the dark and alas, it doesn't emit light. Again, sorry your argument is so weak that you have to lie about what I said in an attempt to sound rational. The fact that you must lie about what I said, and interpret everything should give you a clue as to the validity of your position...but then, you are a dupe, so what else can you do?

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
Man made work means not spontaneous. #453
Energy previously absorbed – never spontaneous. #457
Does not believe cold molecules can strike a warm wall #457
Rock rolling downhill not spontaneous if carried up. #464

Spontaneous process = A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention

Sorry I don't make up the definitions...They are what they are and the words are pretty self explanatory.

And I never said that a cold molecule can't strike a warm wall. This is just one more, in a litany of examples of you misquoting me, reinterpreting what I said, or just plain old making shit up in an effort to sound rational.

In post 453 you suggested that molecules of a cold gas hitting a warmer wall was an example of spontaneous energy transfer from cool to warm...I pointed out that molecules were neither energy not radiation, and that observation and measurement shows the wall cooling down due to the fact that it is losing energy to the cooler gas via conduction.

You are becoming a bigger liar than the skidmark...does that make you proud?

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
If I thought CMB BB radiation hit the antenna, I would say it..it didn't...that antenna picked up a resonant radio frequency...being a radio telescope and all..

Still sorry you don't grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency...dupe and all...

BBC to reduce deniers coverage
#121 Has no idea of what stimulated emission means.
#125 Says luminescence is Stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission

Been though it all before...you lost refer to the past discussion if you must relive your defeats...are you this desperate for attention? Really? Very sad...

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...
#270 Increasing entropy flowing one way means thermal energy can only flow one way.
No man-made apparatus can exhibit spontaneous energy flow.

Spontaneous Process - spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention.

#299 Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

It says it right there in the second law of thermodynamics...Sorry you don't believe the second law of thermodynamics...only your interpretation of it.

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...
#270 A single photon radiating at either frequency [0.2um or 10um]will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.

quanta -The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discretequantity of electromagnetic radiation.

Sorry you don't know what that means...we have been through it all before...

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.
The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters. #720
LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere. #722

Been through it all before...discussed the overwhelming body of evidence gained through experiment, development, design and installation and observation that LWIR does not warm air.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
[scientists] believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB. #233

Still sorry you can't grasp the concept of resonant radio frequencies...sorry your desire to be right overrides your ability to actually learn something...been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to all past incarnations of this same discussion.

Science is falsifiable
“Heat of compression” is the same as “pressure due to heat.”

I note that you didn't put a post number on that statement...because I never said it...simply making up statements and claiming that I said them is frowned upon on this forum...you are nothing but a bald faced liar...and to top it off...you even put the statement in quotes...how much more dishonest could you be?

No Evidence
A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength..

An ideal black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single frequency, by what mechanism does it change the frequency of what it absorbs?

So all you have done is highlight the various times you have already lost these discussions, gave me the opportunity do demonstrate that, and proven that you are becoming one of the worst liars on the board in your attempt to save some face..making up quotes, ascribing them to me and even going so far as to put them in quotation marks...very sad...very dishonest...in the future when you claim I said something, you provide the quote and a link to it...or I am simply going to point out what a liar you are and that you are prone to making up quotes and ascribing them to whoever you care to claim made the statement.

 

[SSDD]

Climate Science is Science but it's not an exact science when it comes to forecasting. There is a ton of evidence that the climate is changing and greenhouse gases are responsible.

Really? You claim a "ton" of evidence that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change...I would like to see a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one single piece of observed measured evidence.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case.

The evidence that CO2 causes warming is a fiction...there is none...but feel free to provide some if you believe it exists...one single piece from that ton should be sufficient. You guys are always making that claim but when you provide what you believe to be evidence, the only thing you prove is how easily you are fooled..

 

[mamooth]

Deforestation has been responsible for almost as much greenhouse gases as fossil fuels.

No, not even close.

After plague and old world diseases in the new world wiped out a significant portion of the human population, the ensuing global-scale reforestation event lowered CO2 levels by about 7ppm. Compare that to the total 120ppm increase.

 

[Crick]

When it comes to humans vs. Earth's size and power, we are insignificant. Better to be concerned about our own survival than pompously thinking we can control anything on the planet.

The problem with global warming is not its effect on the planet or the atmosphere or the oceans. It is its effect the warming of those things will have on us and the infrastructure of human culture. We are perfectly capable of fucking ourselves over royally.

 

[SSDD]

Does that mean you do not think humans are responsible for global warming?

Of course we aren't...and there isn't a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Crick]

some farms WERE forests so it would be a matter of returning them back...

There are 349 million acres of land in US being cultivated. How much of it should be converted to forest and how do we replace the food grown there?

Cut down on cattle which will cut down on the need for grazing land and silage.

 

[RealDave]

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Medieval Warm Period

Warming through 2008

You can't be serious. Please provide details of the instruments and methodology used to measure temperatures in the 10-15th centuries, along with the recorded data.

Can you do that? If not, you're talking pure BS.

Geology, ice cores, tree rings, written history.

Look you fucking idiots can/'t argue that the climate always changes & then claim we don't know anything about past climates,.

 

[RealDave]

Does that mean you do not think humans are responsible for global warming?

Of course we aren't...and there isn't a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

WHSAT!!!!!!!!! What the fuck. Are you this stupid?
We can MEASURE the CO2 levels in our atmosphere & we know how much we are adding through emissions.

If it is not from man, what is adding all this CO2?

 

[RealDave]

some farms WERE forests so it would be a matter of returning them back...

There are 349 million acres of land in US being cultivated. How much of it should be converted to forest and how do we replace the food grown there?

WE can return to older farming techniques where there were tree lines between fields and on property borders.

Climate Science is Science but it's not an exact science when it comes to forecasting. There is a ton of evidence that the climate is changing and greenhouse gases are responsible.

Really? You claim a "ton" of evidence that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change...I would like to see a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one single piece of observed measured evidence.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case.

The evidence that CO2 causes warming is a fiction...there is none...but feel free to provide some if you believe it exists...one single piece from that ton should be sufficient. You guys are always making that claim but when you provide what you believe to be evidence, the only thing you prove is how easily you are fooled..

increased levels CO2 => heightened greenhouse effect => warmer temperatures.


PROVEN FACT

 

[RealDave]

No Evidence
#106 True, I don't believe quantum mechanics as a whole.
When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

Set T and TC to the same number...P=0...So safety the Stefan -Boltzman law. I rest my case.

The [S-B] equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool.

See the above equation...it is a description of a one way gross energy movement.

Equipartition theory doesn't work in the atmosphere.

Not going through all this again...see the previous times you lost this discussion because you could provide no actual observed evidence to support your models.

#118 Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization.

100+ years on, physics still can't even agree on what QM means.

No Evidence
#826 Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question

Sorry you don't know that....and even when you have been told multiple times, you refuse to believe it. Unfortunate, but that's just how it is when you are a dupe.

No Evidence
#888 the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement do you think predicts spontaneous two way energy flow?

No Evidence
#1048 What you call "modern" physics is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...

Refer to all the previous times you lost this discussion because you could provide no observed, measured evidence to support your models.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
#754 So what if the 2nd law violates Quantum Mechanics.

QM is a theory...The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law. Let me know when they strike out the second law of thermodynamics and replace it with QM.

#755 There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Nothing there suggests net energy exchange.

That equation describes a gross one way energy exchange.

#769 the frequency of gamma radiation makes it hotter than anything you might find in the infrared spectrum even though you could hold the emitter in your hand.

I attempted to explain the difference between frequency and temperature...sorry you didn't get it...sorry your argument is so weak that you have to lie about what I said in an attempt to sound rational. Unfortunate...but then you are a dupe..what do you expect?

#117 Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?
His response to my statement:You can't get more spontaneous than radioactivity.

The discussion was regarding radium paint on watch faces..your claim was that the light was spontaneous...turned out to not be true, because the radium only emits light when it has been exposed to light. Keep it in the dark and alas, it doesn't emit light. Again, sorry your argument is so weak that you have to lie about what I said in an attempt to sound rational. The fact that you must lie about what I said, and interpret everything should give you a clue as to the validity of your position...but then, you are a dupe, so what else can you do?

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
Man made work means not spontaneous. #453
Energy previously absorbed – never spontaneous. #457
Does not believe cold molecules can strike a warm wall #457
Rock rolling downhill not spontaneous if carried up. #464

Spontaneous process = A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention

Sorry I don't make up the definitions...They are what they are and the words are pretty self explanatory.

And I never said that a cold molecule can't strike a warm wall. This is just one more, in a litany of examples of you misquoting me, reinterpreting what I said, or just plain old making shit up in an effort to sound rational.

In post 453 you suggested that molecules of a cold gas hitting a warmer wall was an example of spontaneous energy transfer from cool to warm...I pointed out that molecules were neither energy not radiation, and that observation and measurement shows the wall cooling down due to the fact that it is losing energy to the cooler gas via conduction.

You are becoming a bigger liar than the skidmark...does that make you proud?

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
If I thought CMB BB radiation hit the antenna, I would say it..it didn't...that antenna picked up a resonant radio frequency...being a radio telescope and all..

Still sorry you don't grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency...dupe and all...

BBC to reduce deniers coverage
#121 Has no idea of what stimulated emission means.
#125 Says luminescence is Stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission

Been though it all before...you lost refer to the past discussion if you must relive your defeats...are you this desperate for attention? Really? Very sad...

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...
#270 Increasing entropy flowing one way means thermal energy can only flow one way.
No man-made apparatus can exhibit spontaneous energy flow.

Spontaneous Process - spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention.

#299 Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

It says it right there in the second law of thermodynamics...Sorry you don't believe the second law of thermodynamics...only your interpretation of it.

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...
#270 A single photon radiating at either frequency [0.2um or 10um]will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.

quanta -The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discretequantity of electromagnetic radiation.

Sorry you don't know what that means...we have been through it all before...

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.
The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters. #720
LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere. #722

Been through it all before...discussed the overwhelming body of evidence gained through experiment, development, design and installation and observation that LWIR does not warm air.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
[scientists] believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB. #233

Still sorry you can't grasp the concept of resonant radio frequencies...sorry your desire to be right overrides your ability to actually learn something...been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to all past incarnations of this same discussion.

Science is falsifiable
“Heat of compression” is the same as “pressure due to heat.”

I note that you didn't put a post number on that statement...because I never said it...simply making up statements and claiming that I said them is frowned upon on this forum...you are nothing but a bald faced liar...and to top it off...you even put the statement in quotes...how much more dishonest could you be?

No Evidence
A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength..

An ideal black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single frequency, by what mechanism does it change the frequency of what it absorbs?

So all you have done is highlight the various times you have already lost these discussions, gave me the opportunity do demonstrate that, and proven that you are becoming one of the worst liars on the board in your attempt to save some face..making up quotes, ascribing them to me and even going so far as to put them in quotation marks...very sad...very dishonest...in the future when you claim I said something, you provide the quote and a link to it...or I am simply going to point out what a liar you are and that you are prone to making up quotes and ascribing them to whoever you care to claim made the statement.

A heaping pile of nothing.

The greenhouse effect is proven science.

you copying & pasting denier crap from a denier site onl]y proves how duped you really are.

 

[RealDave]

If humans are able to affect the Earth to such an extent that Earth's climate actually changes, then, since the Earth is located in a Galaxy, and the Galaxy exists in the Universe, I think we could be dealing with man-caused Universe Change. LOL

Wow, what a ridiculous argument. "Man is too puny to change anything on Earth"

If we listen tro dumbsasses like yopu & the abve gloibal temps rise another 4-6 degrees C, the effect is ion Earth. No where else.

If you don;t think man can affect anything on Earth,. lets detonate all the nukes in existence & see how we all survive?

 

[RealDave]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

How can evidence be given to you when your head is in the sand.

You ignore all the evidence.

 

[RealDave]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

Climate Science is Science but it's not an exact science when it comes to forecasting. There is a ton of evidence that the climate is changing and greenhouse gases are responsible.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The problem with natural variability is it does not explain the observed relationship between rising CO2 levels and temperature.

How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural

Whats up with you guys not admitting deforestation in the southern hemisphere is on par with burning fossil fuel?

Sctually, it is on par with burning gasoline & diesel fuel. Now lets add all the others like coal, etc.