Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?

I'll agree that we are warmer lately than 1800.

Now, show the science demonstrating the sgnificance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

And?


Please show the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[westwall]

Did you believe them when they told you that cigarettes aren't harmful?

Did you believe you when you said MTBE wasn't harmful and would be great for air quality?
We warned you that it was a terrible poison and you ignored us. You caused billions in environmental damage and poisoned water wells all over the state of California.

What do you have to say for yourself?

Nice dodge.

Oh? How is that a dodge? In matters of the environment we have a far better track record then you and yours do. FAR better. You just don't like it when those facts are pointed out to you do you.

Thanks for playing but next time come armed with something more then this pathetic effort.

 

[westwall]

The warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. Then six years are tied for third place, and they have all occurred since 1998.

The earth is unequivocally in a warming trend. The NASA data shows that.

They aren't altering the Y axis on the NASA graph to make a point. They just show the temperatures increasing, and they state that the warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

So the Earth is getting warmer, right?

Ummmm, no they're not. Well let me correct myself, they are now. Now that Hansen and Co. went into the historical record AND ALTERED IT! They made the decade of th 1930's cooler then it actually was to try and reinforce the fiction that this last decade is the warmest.

When you remove the shenanigans that the warmests are doing all this hyperbole is exposed for what it is. Horse manure.

 

[westwall]

Did you believe them when they told you that cigarettes aren't harmful?

They were called coffin nails for decades before the Surgeon General came out with his report.

The suspicion that smoking tobacco caused damage to the user’s heart and lungs dates back centuries. In 1604, King James I of Great Britain had remarked in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco” that smoking was “dangerous to the lungs.” In 1867, George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, who himself had stopped smoking in the 1850s, wrote three commentaries warning of health hazards from using tobacco.

Coffin Nails:* The Tobacco Controversy in the 19th Century

You don't remember tobacco executives testifying before congress and lying?

Of course we do. Just like I remember Hansen and Co. lying before congress.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're free to overpay for alternatives. Leave me out of it.

Did you believe them when they told you that cigarettes aren't harmful?

They were called coffin nails for decades before the Surgeon General came out with his report.

The suspicion that smoking tobacco caused damage to the user’s heart and lungs dates back centuries. In 1604, King James I of Great Britain had remarked in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco” that smoking was “dangerous to the lungs.” In 1867, George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, who himself had stopped smoking in the 1850s, wrote three commentaries warning of health hazards from using tobacco.

Coffin Nails:* The Tobacco Controversy in the 19th Century

Why yes, that is right. But there are scientists like Singer and Lindzen that will tell you otherwise. Same 'scientists' that are also telling you that global warming is a hoax.

 

[Old Rocks]

One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?

I'll agree that we are warmer lately than 1800.

Now, show the science demonstrating the sgnificance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

And?


Please show the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

My, my, if it is not dumbass Sis spewing her usual retarded logic. Sure, I can show the science. Can state it, also. It is called the absorbtion spectra of GHGs, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitious oxides, and various manmade chemicals that have no natural analog.

The fact that there had to be something in the atmosphere that is capturing some of the reflected heat was first observed by Joseph Fourier in the 1822. Tyndall demonstrated the absorbtion of the infrared by the various GHGs in 1858. And Arrnhenius did the first real quantification of the effects in 1896.

And we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850. And 150% more CH4.

Of course, do not take my word for it. Here is the information from the site of the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now Sis, we all know that you are so much smarter than all the Phd physicists that make up this Scientific Society. Not only smarter than any of them, but all of them put together. You and that obese drugged out radio jock.

 

[Old Rocks]

They were called coffin nails for decades before the Surgeon General came out with his report.

The suspicion that smoking tobacco caused damage to the user’s heart and lungs dates back centuries. In 1604, King James I of Great Britain had remarked in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco” that smoking was “dangerous to the lungs.” In 1867, George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, who himself had stopped smoking in the 1850s, wrote three commentaries warning of health hazards from using tobacco.

Coffin Nails:* The Tobacco Controversy in the 19th Century

You don't remember tobacco executives testifying before congress and lying?

I remember Al Gore lying in his silly movie.

Name the lies, fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

Did you believe you when you said MTBE wasn't harmful and would be great for air quality?
We warned you that it was a terrible poison and you ignored us. You caused billions in environmental damage and poisoned water wells all over the state of California.

What do you have to say for yourself?

Nice dodge.

Oh? How is that a dodge? In matters of the environment we have a far better track record then you and yours do. FAR better. You just don't like it when those facts are pointed out to you do you.

Thanks for playing but next time come armed with something more then this pathetic effort.

By golly, guys like you sure do. From Donarra to the poisoning of the waters on the East Coast with mountaintop removal for mining coal, assholes like you have created more destruction in this nation than any misdirected environmentalists every have.

That is your track record.

 

[gslack]

Socks you keep on referring to a poster by gender and you only show what a true lowlife pig you really are.. So please keep it up, you make the job of slapping you all too easy..

Oh so now you like Al Gore again? I thought he wasn't a scientist and you didn't base your opinions on him? uh-huh, busted again being a hypocrite and fraud... One minute you tell us how Al Gore is only what deniers talk about when they can't talk about the science, and now you try and pretend he didn't lie in his film.... So which is it socks is he or is he not to be believed now? makes no difference to me but I think you should make a decision on it because you look idiotic...

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor dumb ass G-vig cannot understand the simplest of things.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a concerned layman who put what the scientists were stating in layman's terms, and brought it to the world's attention. Did it well enough that he turned a lecture into a documentary that is one of the most viewed, worldwide, of all the documentaries ever made.

Personally, Al Gore is a rather successful individual. Senator and Vice-President. Even though he lost the Presidential election by the electorial votes, he recieved more votes than did Bush. After the election, took an inheritance that made him reasonably wealthy, and by astute investment in the high tech market, when that market was on a downer, turned it into a major fortune.

Quite a contrast to some other politicians that were total failures in the business world.

 

[Si modo]

I'll agree that we are warmer lately than 1800.

Now, show the science demonstrating the sgnificance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

And?


Please show the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

My, my, if it is not dumbass Sis spewing her usual retarded logic. Sure, I can show the science. Can state it, also. It is called the absorbtion spectra of GHGs, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitious oxides, and various manmade chemicals that have no natural analog.

The fact that there had to be something in the atmosphere that is capturing some of the reflected heat was first observed by Joseph Fourier in the 1822. Tyndall demonstrated the absorbtion of the infrared by the various GHGs in 1858. And Arrnhenius did the first real quantification of the effects in 1896.

And we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850. And 150% more CH4.

Of course, do not take my word for it. Here is the information from the site of the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now Sis, we all know that you are so much smarter than all the Phd physicists that make up this Scientific Society. Not only smarter than any of them, but all of them put together. You and that obese drugged out radio jock.

Why you argue that there is a 'greenhouse' effect is beyond me.

Whenever I say there is not one, your post will have significance.

However, when I ask for the science demonstrating causation or even significance of man made CO2, you never produce any.

And, it's not a surprise. There isn't any.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Same statement to you, different day. You refuse to be honest or you really are just that stupid.

 

[gslack]

Poor dumb ass G-vig cannot understand the simplest of things.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a concerned layman who put what the scientists were stating in layman's terms, and brought it to the world's attention. Did it well enough that he turned a lecture into a documentary that is one of the most viewed, worldwide, of all the documentaries ever made.

Personally, Al Gore is a rather successful individual. Senator and Vice-President. Even though he lost the Presidential election by the electorial votes, he recieved more votes than did Bush. After the election, took an inheritance that made him reasonably wealthy, and by astute investment in the high tech market, when that market was on a downer, turned it into a major fortune.

Quite a contrast to some other politicians that were total failures in the business world.

So then you like him again? Good because its much easier to bash you with him when you defend the lying POS...

He lied in the documentary and he did so to further himself, its even admitted by many on your own side of this now.. Not even a few months ago you and your pals tried to distance yourselves from him...

So tell me socks is the sea level really going to rise 20 feet or more in our lifetime?

Or is there really any evidence that Katrina was caused by global warming?

Or is it climate change now?

How about the hockey stick graph that didn't show the MWP?

Or why didn't he point out that CO2 rise was actually 400-800 years AFTER temperature rise in his hockey stick graph?

yeah he lied just like you do...

 

[Old Rocks]

You dumb fuck. LOL. The 400-800 year lag in temperture rise was during the warmup 14,000 years ago, and is well explained by science. It has nothing whatever to do with anybodies hockey stick graph. Are you ever going to research something before you flap yap? Silly question.

 

[Old Rocks]

And?


Please show the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

My, my, if it is not dumbass Sis spewing her usual retarded logic. Sure, I can show the science. Can state it, also. It is called the absorbtion spectra of GHGs, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitious oxides, and various manmade chemicals that have no natural analog.

The fact that there had to be something in the atmosphere that is capturing some of the reflected heat was first observed by Joseph Fourier in the 1822. Tyndall demonstrated the absorbtion of the infrared by the various GHGs in 1858. And Arrnhenius did the first real quantification of the effects in 1896.

And we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850. And 150% more CH4.

Of course, do not take my word for it. Here is the information from the site of the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now Sis, we all know that you are so much smarter than all the Phd physicists that make up this Scientific Society. Not only smarter than any of them, but all of them put together. You and that obese drugged out radio jock.

Why you argue that there is a 'greenhouse' effect is beyond me.

Whenever I say there is not one, your post will have significance.

However, when I ask for the science demonstrating causation or even significance of man made CO2, you never produce any.

And, it's not a surprise. There isn't any.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Same statement to you, different day. You refuse to be honest or you really are just that stupid.

Sheesh, Sis, your arguement is not with a millwright. I have no scientific credentials. Your arguement is with the American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and all the other scientific societies that state science does have enough evidence for a conclusion that GHGs are implicated in the rising global temperatures beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Sis, when can I expect to see you presenting a paper on why we have no evidence implicating GHGs in the rising global temperatures? And what are your thoughts conscerning the causes of the proven rise?

 

[Si modo]

My, my, if it is not dumbass Sis spewing her usual retarded logic. Sure, I can show the science. Can state it, also. It is called the absorbtion spectra of GHGs, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitious oxides, and various manmade chemicals that have no natural analog.

The fact that there had to be something in the atmosphere that is capturing some of the reflected heat was first observed by Joseph Fourier in the 1822. Tyndall demonstrated the absorbtion of the infrared by the various GHGs in 1858. And Arrnhenius did the first real quantification of the effects in 1896.

And we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850. And 150% more CH4.

Of course, do not take my word for it. Here is the information from the site of the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now Sis, we all know that you are so much smarter than all the Phd physicists that make up this Scientific Society. Not only smarter than any of them, but all of them put together. You and that obese drugged out radio jock.

Why you argue that there is a 'greenhouse' effect is beyond me.

Whenever I say there is not one, your post will have significance.

However, when I ask for the science demonstrating causation or even significance of man made CO2, you never produce any.

And, it's not a surprise. There isn't any.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Same statement to you, different day. You refuse to be honest or you really are just that stupid.

Sheesh, Sis, your arguement is not with a millwright. I have no scientific credentials. Your arguement is with the American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and all the other scientific societies that state science does have enough evidence for a conclusion that GHGs are implicated in the rising global temperatures beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pissing in the ocean is obviously implicated in increasing the alkalinity of the ocean.

That's a no brainer.

Now, produce the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Same question, different day.

 

[Si modo]

OK, Sis, when can I expect to see you presenting a paper on why we have no evidence implicating GHGs in the rising global temperatures? And what are your thoughts conscerning the causes of the proven rise?

Only morons ask someone to prove a negative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you believe them when they told you that cigarettes aren't harmful?

They were called coffin nails for decades before the Surgeon General came out with his report.

The suspicion that smoking tobacco caused damage to the user’s heart and lungs dates back centuries. In 1604, King James I of Great Britain had remarked in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco” that smoking was “dangerous to the lungs.” In 1867, George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, who himself had stopped smoking in the 1850s, wrote three commentaries warning of health hazards from using tobacco.

Coffin Nails:* The Tobacco Controversy in the 19th Century

Why yes, that is right. But there are scientists like Singer and Lindzen that will tell you otherwise. Same 'scientists' that are also telling you that global warming is a hoax.

Really? The same scientists? The exact same guys? Prove it.

So what percentage of the warming is caused by the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't remember tobacco executives testifying before congress and lying?

I remember Al Gore lying in his silly movie.

Name the lies, fool.

His cute little graph showed temperatures rose before CO2 levels did.
Maybe he was just stupid? Or he needs new glasses?

 

[IanC]

Did you believe them when they told you that cigarettes aren't harmful?

They were called coffin nails for decades before the Surgeon General came out with his report.

The suspicion that smoking tobacco caused damage to the user’s heart and lungs dates back centuries. In 1604, King James I of Great Britain had remarked in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco” that smoking was “dangerous to the lungs.” In 1867, George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, who himself had stopped smoking in the 1850s, wrote three commentaries warning of health hazards from using tobacco.

Coffin Nails:* The Tobacco Controversy in the 19th Century

Why yes, that is right. But there are scientists like Singer and Lindzen that will tell you otherwise. Same 'scientists' that are also telling you that global warming is a hoax.

I am not up to speed on the 'tobacco wars' and I dont know who said what. but I am willing to bet that Lindzen and Singer testified that the exaggerated conclusions stated by the surgeon-general and others werent supported by the actual evidence. not unlike people like you who blame CO2 for floods and droughts even though there is no proof.

reasonable people can accept that there has been some warming from the influence of CO2. but it is very difficult to put a quantity to that influence. and impossible to 'blame' a natural disaster on it.

just because Lindzen and Singer disagree with an exaggerated conclusion that is not backed up by the evidence that does not mean that they are stating a conclusion that is diametrically opposed. they are simply stating that the conclusion is invalid with the available evidence.