Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[SSDD]

CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.

Describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as you understand it.

 

[bripat9643]

So again, you're saying humans breathing is polluting the air?

No I didn't. You lose!

did you not state that CO2 is a pollutant?

I did not. I posted a comprehensive article on why breathing isn't a pollutant, per se - lies by omission are still lies.

dude, is CO2 a pollutant or not?

CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.

That doesn't answer the question. Water vapor is also a green house gas.

 

[orogenicman]

No I didn't. You lose!

did you not state that CO2 is a pollutant?

I did not. I posted a comprehensive article on why breathing isn't a pollutant, per se - lies by omission are still lies.

dude, is CO2 a pollutant or not?

CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.

Yes, it is. And it appears to have reached saturation level in our atmosphere. In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen.

WTF??? Bullshit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Now, here's a link which proves nothing but provides much food for thought.

CO2 Exactly HOW does it warm the planet Knowledge Drift The Science of Human Error

Don't expect an answer, that's not how science works. Clowns like CrusaderFrank and BriPat actually believe they know the truth but never offer any explanation as to how they got there (we know, the Limbaugh Letter).

"The truth".............lmao............a hysterical comment given the science behind climate science. All this debate is nothing more than an internet hobby in 2015. The AGW k00ks thump their chests about their monopoly on the truth, but where has it gotten them in the real world? A statement on the truth means exactly what?


It means exactly nothing outside the nether-regions of the internet.


Renewable energy is a joke and will continue to be for decades ( do I need to post up the Obama EIA graph yet again? ). And in the real world, Americans don't give a fuck about global warming!!! ( post up those polls by request only ).


"The truth"!!!!



Heres a medal for you guys!!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/medal.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

These AGW climate crusaders.............

Dollar to a thousand stale donuts we are talking social invalids here. You know the type..........finally gets a girl in the sack and blows his wad in 30 seconds but boasts about his glorious roll!!!. The social landscape has always been a bit scewed. Picked last for the team and took bows!!!. Walked the school halls with the gheyest lunchbox in town and was real proud of it!! Social invalids......taking bows for winning internet pissing contests!!

Phony....boring...........ghey.............and losing!

 

[skookerasbil]

I have to admit.....every time I post up this gem, I laugh my balls off here in front of my PC!!

 

[jc456]

So again, you're saying humans breathing is polluting the air?

No I didn't. You lose!

did you not state that CO2 is a pollutant?

I did not. I posted a comprehensive article on why breathing isn't a pollutant, per se - lies by omission are still lies.

dude, is CO2 a pollutant or not?

CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.

that has characteristics logarithmic, which means what?

 

[jc456]

did you not state that CO2 is a pollutant?

I did not. I posted a comprehensive article on why breathing isn't a pollutant, per se - lies by omission are still lies.

dude, is CO2 a pollutant or not?

CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.

Yes, it is. And it appears to have reached saturation level in our atmosphere. In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen.

WTF??? Bullshit.

do you agree it is logarithmic?

 

[jc456]

I think this thread is good place for this debate I found yesterday. sort of along the same line.

Bill Nye vs Marc Morano via Youtube:

 

[orogenicman]

I did not. I posted a comprehensive article on why breathing isn't a pollutant, per se - lies by omission are still lies.

dude, is CO2 a pollutant or not?

CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.

Yes, it is. And it appears to have reached saturation level in our atmosphere. In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen.

WTF??? Bullshit.

do you agree it is logarithmic?

Do you always ask irrelevant questions?

 

[jc456]

Yes, it is. And it appears to have reached saturation level in our atmosphere. In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen.

WTF??? Bullshit.

do you agree it is logarithmic?

Do you always ask irrelevant questions?

and you never answer any question like a true dick.

When you ask a relevant question, I may or may not give it due consideration. This one is not relevant, as you well know.

is CO2 a pollutant?

 

[jc456]

do you agree it is logarithmic?

Do you always ask irrelevant questions?

and you never answer any question like a true dick.

When you ask a relevant question, I may or may not give it due consideration. This one is not relevant, as you well know.

is CO2 a pollutant?

The extraordinary claim that was not supported was " In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen."

Try to stay focused.

You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?

 

[jc456]

and you never answer any question like a true dick.

When you ask a relevant question, I may or may not give it due consideration. This one is not relevant, as you well know.

is CO2 a pollutant?

The extraordinary claim that was not supported was " In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen."

Try to stay focused.

You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?

You are correct. I didn't address the question you ask each and every time you want to divert the direction of an online conversation. Now, stay focused.

again, is CO2 a pollutant?

 

[orogenicman]

When you ask a relevant question, I may or may not give it due consideration. This one is not relevant, as you well know.

is CO2 a pollutant?

The extraordinary claim that was not supported was " In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen."

Try to stay focused.

You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?

You are correct. I didn't address the question you ask each and every time you want to divert the direction of an online conversation. Now, stay focused.

again, is CO2 a pollutant?

Prove that doubling the global concentration of CO2 will have no effect.

 

[jc456]

is CO2 a pollutant?

The extraordinary claim that was not supported was " In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen."

Try to stay focused.

You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?

You are correct. I didn't address the question you ask each and every time you want to divert the direction of an online conversation. Now, stay focused.

again, is CO2 a pollutant?

Prove that doubling the global concentration of CO2 will have no effect.

Are you on earth breathing and temperatures are normal. Proof.

 

[skookerasbil]

and you never answer any question like a true dick.

When you ask a relevant question, I may or may not give it due consideration. This one is not relevant, as you well know.

is CO2 a pollutant?

The extraordinary claim that was not supported was " In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen."

Try to stay focused.

You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?

You are correct. I didn't address the question you ask each and every time you want to divert the direction of an online conversation. Now, stay focused.

s0n....the only relevant post in the thread is #184!!! All the rest is nothing more than internet pissing contest banter.


The OP is highly misinformed!!!

The title? Laughable.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.....and from today on REALCLEAR...........who's not winning?


Hide the Hiatus How the Climate Alarmists Eliminated the Inconvenient Pause in Global Warming - Breitbart


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS

 

[Billy_Bob]

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

I've asked Liminal...he's not responding...so I'll ask you.

Why don't you issue a challenge in the Bullring to an "alarmist" (like Liminal) and let the rest of us watch you go at it.

You get to pick three judges who'll decide who won.

You interested ?

it's a really simple request, and one that hasn't been answered for over a year now for me on this forum. That is, show me evidence that adding 120 PPM of CO2 increases warming. It's that simple. the warmer deniers response, already gave it, thousands of pieces, mountains of evidence, and to date as Frank and others on here will, that evidence has never, never been provided. I do have one, Herr Koch 1901, proved that it wouldn't. Ask old rock, he likes to post it up weekly on about every thread, by the way, I think violates the rules here, but I enjoy getting to point to my guy Herr for my counter argument that he or any other have ever been able to counter back.So, get someone on the warmer denier list to supply that evidence. Let's go.

Let's look at some predicted consequences:

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate

More failed predictions!.. Thanks for exposing them for us. Both of those papers are GARBAGE!.. They have both failed Empirical Evidence review but you know that but you keep posting them hopping no one will check the source and call you out on them..

Calling this garbage is easy, name calling always is. Now, post some substantive comments critical of these "failed predictions" (BTW, how can you determine a prediction into the future has failed?).

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

And this one too:

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate

Well, let look at Woods Hole OCeianic Instistues new paper for a moment:

A new study led by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that the coral reefs there seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion — the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms. The paper is to be published June 5 in the journal Science Advances.

Rather an interesting piece of work. If you take the time to read the whole paper and do the math you will find that a drop or more neutral pH of the oceans is well within the standard deviations of + / - 0.287 range of the oceans themselves.

You will also note, if you read the paper, that all of the imagined (modeled) fear has not happened and is not happening globally.

Model = FAILURE
Reality = Causing environmentalist to scream louder without a basis in reality.

Even this paper has the warmish twist but if you do the math you will find that their alarm is unjustified by their own empirical observations and that has them perplexed.


Source

 

[Crick]

Why did you make no comment about the content of the two papers to which Wry Catcher linked? You know, the ones you called "garbage". Couldn't you explain why you believe them to be garbage? Apparently not. Instead, you bring up a loosely related paper and then have to stretch it and strain it to get something vaguely supportive of your view on ocean aciidification. I'm not impressed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why did you make no comment about the content of the two papers to which Wry Catcher linked? You know, the ones you called "garbage". Couldn't you explain why you believe them to be garbage? Apparently not. Instead, you bring up a loosely related paper and then have to stretch it and strain it to get something vaguely supportive of your view on ocean aciidification. I'm not impressed.

Because both of those papers were alarmist drivel. If I wanted BS trumped up alarmist crap without a balanced look into the real science of it I could have. But I choose empirical evidence grounded in real scientific estimates not the drummed up garbage you all present.

I can think and evaluate what is presented contrary to your "the thinking's been done" mantra, which is crap.