Evidence that global warming IS happening

[Abraham3]

I don't see Mssrs SSDD, or his cheering section: Owl and Wildcard, returning after that faux pas. Though I see, that like most mornings, SSDD is online.

 

[Abraham3]

SSDD, obviously someone TOLD you that the lapse rate variation had some effect on the Greenhouse Effect or on global warming. You didn't come up with that on your own. So, where'd it come from? Give us a reference that would justify your belief.

 

[SSDD]

Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.



Notice the rate of change for moist tropical air vs dry polar air....see how much more the change is for moist air vs dry air....H20, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has a cooling effect like it or not. Now square that with the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.

I see. I happened to know what the dry and wet or saturated lapse rates are. What I didn't know - and still don't - is why you think they will cause moisture to be a net coolant. Let me start out by pointing out a bit of a mistake on your part. The saturated lapse rate is, as I thought you first stated, shallower than the dry. Wet air does NOT cool off faster than dry air with increasing altitude. It cools off more SLOWLY because latent heat is used condensing its water vapor. Go ahead and look it up.

I see that once again, you prove to the whole board that you can not, indeed, read a graph so once again, us skeptics will step up and help you. Look back at my statement, I said that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate and as the graph points out, this is true. Since you can't read a graph, it stands to reason that you don't know what that means.

The vertical plane of the graph is altitude...see over there on the right side where it says altitude? It also says (km) which means that the measurement is in kilometers. Now look at the horizontal plane of the graph...that is the bottom. See what it says? it says mean temperature...that means temperature. It also says (k). Do you know what that means?

Ok now lets look at what the dry adiabatic lapse rate being twice as steep as the wet rate actually means. Look at the blue, or polar, or dry air profile. Lets go from the ground up to the 5 km level. In that first 5 km, the temperature drops from about 245K to 239K. The math is easy but just to be on the safe side, I will tell you that the drop is about 6 degrees K, Now look at the red line which represents wet tropical air. Again, look at the base of the graph or ground level. The temperature is about 307K...now follow the red line up to the 5km mark. The temperature there is about 275K. Once again, the math is easy but the temperature has dropped 32 degrees K.

So in 5 km, the temperature of dry air drops 7 degrees K and the temperature of wet air drops 32 degrees K. Think carefully....which air is cooling more rapidly as the altitude increases? 7 degrees K vs 32 degrees K. Which is the largest number?

Now that the basics of reading the graph have been explained to you, do you need for me to continue to describe the changes as we get on up into the atmosphere? Now you will probably notice that the profile for very wet air changes once we exit the troposphere but that is irrelavent as the so called greenhouse effect is purported to be a tropospheric effect causing the troposphere to be warmer.

So as you can see we have air saturated with the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere cooling faster than air with little of the predominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. This tells us that the predominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a cooling agent. Simple, yes?

at that point you just gave us a "Hey Presto, I win" How about a REAL explanation as to why you think the differences in lapse rates and humidity make water vapor a net coolant. I'd also like to know what you think is being cooled and where you think the heat is going.

So I am going to guess that statement is a result of you not being able to read a graph. Now that you can (in theory) read and understand the graph and see for yourself that mosit air cools at a more rapid rate as the altitude increases, do you really want to continue to as ignorant questions? Can you really still not see that the presence of the dominant greenhouse gas results in losing more degrees per kilometer than the absence of it?

: you originally said: "If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods)". P'raps you need to settle on what it is you actually want to say here first.

Yeah, twice as steep...that I shat I meant to say. The word steep refers to the amount of temperature lost as the altitude increases. More basic graph reading here...listen closely. The more steeply you increase along the vertical scale, the more slowly you move along the horizontal scale. In this case, it means that the more steeply you climb the vertical scale, the more slowly the temperature falls. The less steeply you climb the vertical scale, the more distance you cover along the horizontal scale...again, the less steeply you assend the vertical (or altitude) scale, the more ground you cover on the horizontal (or temperature) scale...ie...the less steep the profile, the more temperature change you see as the altitude increases....on this scale the wet air is bleeding temperature more quickly than the dry air...the only difference between the two is pressure and the presence, or absence of the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere....If you claim the change in temperature is due to pressure, then you falsify the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science...if you claim the change is due to the H2O, you either falsify the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science or you claim that H2O is not a greenhouse gas.

 

[SSDD]

Yep,

Wet lapse rate is around 3c/1,000m and dry is around 5.5 something/1,000m. The air parcel moves upwards and expands to saturation at the level of free convection and releases latent heat as it changes from vapor to liquids within cloud droplets in the cloud.

Making the presence of H2O a cooling factor, not a heat "trap" even though the radiative profile of H2O dominates and completely eclipses that of CO2.

 

[SSDD]

I don't see Mssrs SSDD, or his cheering section: Owl and Wildcard, returning after that faux pas. Though I see, that like most mornings, SSDD is online.

The only faux pas was yours abe..not knowing how to read a temperature/altitude profile.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, obviously someone TOLD you that the lapse rate variation had some effect on the Greenhouse Effect or on global warming. You didn't come up with that on your own. So, where'd it come from? Give us a reference that would justify your belief.

As I have been telling you all along, there is an atmospheric thermal effect, not a greenhouse effect as described by climate science driven by a trace gas in the atmosphere. What I know comes from many sources, including my own humble education that actually look at what is being claimed vs observation and the physical laws. You didn't come up with the greenhouse effect on your own and you don't provide sources for everything you claim to know. The graph is the result of information gathered from the public domain aeronautical software site. I would suppose that I trust what aeronautical engineers have to say regarding how atmospheric conditions change at various altitudes...after all they prove their science every time an aircraft leaves the ground.....I am still waiting for you to provide a single measurement, from anyone, of a greenhouse effect.

 

[Abraham3]

Well...
1) Your understanding of the word "steep" is not the rest of the world's understanding of the word
2) The "vertical plane" of the graph is not altitude. The vertical AXIS of the graph is altitude
3) Your graph does not represent lapse rate, it represents temperature vs altitude.

I can not only read a graph, I can read the TITLES on graphs. So why don't you put the title and the origin of this graph up here so we don't accuse you of just making shit up.

As to the difference between lapse rates, let's try some authorities with a little better record than... you.

From Wikipedia:

Dry adiabatic lapse rate

Emagram diagram showing variation of dry adiabats (bold lines) and moist adiabats (dash lines) according to pressure and temperature
The dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) is the rate of temperature decrease with altitude for a parcel of dry or unsaturated air rising under adiabatic conditions. Unsaturated air has less than 100% relative humidity; i.e. its actual temperature is higher than its dew point. The term adiabatic means that no heat transfer occurs into or out of the parcel. Air has low thermal conductivity, and the bodies of air involved are very large, so transfer of heat by conduction is negligibly small.
Under these conditions when the air rises (for instance, by convection) it expands, because the pressure is lower at higher altitudes. As the air parcel expands, it pushes on the air around it, doing work (thermodynamics). Since the parcel does work but gains no heat, it loses internal energy so that its temperature decreases. The rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 °C/km (5.38 °F per 1,000 ft) (3.0°C/1,000 ft). The reverse occurs for a sinking parcel of air.[7]

Saturated adiabatic lapse rate

When the air is saturated with water vapor (at its dew point), the moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) or saturated adiabatic lapse rate (SALR) applies. This lapse rate varies strongly with temperature. A typical value is around 5 °C/km (2.7 °F/1,000 ft) (1.5°C/1,000 ft).
The reason for the difference between the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rate values is that latent heat is released when water condenses, thus decreasing the rate of temperature drop as altitude increases. This heat release process is an important source of energy in the development of thunderstorms. An unsaturated parcel of air of given temperature, altitude and moisture content below that of the corresponding dewpoint cools at the dry adiabatic lapse rate as altitude increases until the dewpoint line for the given moisture content is intersected. As the water vapor then starts condensing the air parcel subsequently cools at the slower moist adiabatic lapse rate if the altitude increases further.

If you haven't suffered enough embarrassment, try the following links:

lapse rate (meteorology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Lapse Rate - Overview of Lapse Rate

Lapse rates, Moisture, Clouds and Thunderstorms.

Lapse Rate and Adiabatic Processes

Dry versus Moist-Adiabatic Processes

This last one has a handy graphic.

Note the temperatures of the two pieces of air. After rising (the act your graph does not actually illustrate), which piece of air is warmer?

Is it coming clear yet?

 

[Abraham3]

Yep,

Wet lapse rate is around 3c/1,000m and dry is around 5.5 something/1,000m. The air parcel moves upwards and expands to saturation at the level of free convection and releases latent heat as it changes from vapor to liquids within cloud droplets in the cloud.

Making the presence of H2O a cooling factor, not a heat "trap" even though the radiative profile of H2O dominates and completely eclipses that of CO2.

The numbers that Matthew gave, which likely came from the Wikipedia article, show LESS TEMPERATURE DROP FOR THE SATURATED AIR. That is the OPPOSITE OF YOUR CLAIM.

You need to read things a little more carefully. Or at all.

When you finally get it sorted out which air cools more, we can have a discussion about where that heat is going (if it's going anywhere at all - look up the word "adiabatic" dude).

That you think this argument shows you smart and me dumb is absolutely hilarious. Did I say that out loud? How could you have stuck your neck out that far without checking your facts?

 

[SSDD]

It is only your ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed off the board.....Still waiting for that explanation of the lower tropospheric temperature of Uranus using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science. When might that be forthcoming? By the way, I can't help but notice that your cartoon graph only goes up 1km...why do you suppose that is. Picking cherries again? Arbitrary start stop points to fool the idiots? Refer back to my graph for the answer....look at 1km dry air vs wet air.

 

[Theowl32]

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is a long way down Abraham. It is a long long way down. You should not have climbed so high.


I suggest you start researching exit strategies.

You won't though. Go ahead and keep on falling for the cliches.

Must be very difficult being so wrong about this.

 

[Abraham3]

It is only your ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed off the board.....Still waiting for that explanation of the lower tropospheric temperature of Uranus using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science. When might that be forthcoming? By the way, I can't help but notice that your cartoon graph only goes up 1km...why do you suppose that is. Picking cherries again? Arbitrary start stop points to fool the idiots? Refer back to my graph for the answer....look at 1km dry air vs wet air.

You really think that gets you off the hook? Why do you keep digging? Every single reference I put up there and a hundred more besides says you are 180 degrees out with dry vs wet and not a ONE of them says diddly squat about any affect of that difference on global warming.

Did you look up the word adiabatic?

ad·i·a·bat·ic [ad-ee-uh-bat-ik, ey-dahy-uh-] Show IPA
adjective
occurring without gain or loss of heat (opposed to diabatic ): an adiabatic process.

When you've figured out how an adiabatic process can warm or cool anything, you let us know.

And if you ever received a passing grade for a thermo class, you need to send it back.

 

[Abraham3]

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is a long way down Abraham. It is a long long way down. You should not have climbed so high.


I suggest you start researching exit strategies.

You won't though. Go ahead and keep on falling for the cliches.

Must be very difficult being so wrong about this.

Just a quickie. Wanted to know if you're sticking with SSDD about lapse rates. Yes or no?

 

[Theowl32]

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is a long way down Abraham. It is a long long way down. You should not have climbed so high.


I suggest you start researching exit strategies.

You won't though. Go ahead and keep on falling for the cliches.

Must be very difficult being so wrong about this.

Just a quickie. Wanted to know if you're sticking with SSDD about lapse rates. Yes or no?

Hope you have a parachute.

 

[Abraham3]

I thought about it and I looked it up and here's what turns out to be the case.

The slower cooling by rising, wet air turns out to be a negative feedback from global warming.

As the world heats up, our computer models tell us that we will see increased evaporation and thus higher average humidity in the atmosphere. Given the way lapse rates actually work, that means warmer air aloft. That means more LW radiation getting out to space than were that warmth to stay low. So there was a measure of correctness in SSDD's position. I should have seen it earlier. Just a few points though.

It first has to get warmer for the humidity to increase and the amount of warm air aloft to increase. This is a feedback mechanism, not a barrier or an independent process. Feedback mechanisms cannot stop their driving processes or make them reverse, they can only mitigate. Per the laws of physics, this can NOT cause water vapor to be a net coolant. And if you want to treat this process as being adiabatic, which it comes quite close to if you're only considering conductive and convective cooling, than it has NO effect on global warming because, by choice, you would NOT concern yourself with any LW radiation or any other means of heat transfer. Just to get this point across, a parcel of air rising through the atmosphere does not require losing thermal energy to its surroundings to cool. It cools because pressure is dropping and the parcel is expanding. In essence, you have to spread the same amount of energy across a larger volume and thus the energy density (ie, the temperature) has to drop.

 

[Abraham3]

Just a quickie. Wanted to know if you're sticking with SSDD about lapse rates. Yes or no?

Hope you have a parachute.

I think I'll simply rely on mainstream science instead. How many degreed atmospheric scientists do you see arguing that water vapor is an atmospheric coolant? Any? Why don't you do a search and see who you can find suggesting that's the case.

You probably weren't aware of this, but SSDD rejects quantum mechanics and believes that bodies only radiate in the direction of colder temperatures; not that such is the net result, but that they actually sense their surroundings and choose in which direction to radiate. I know you're more than a little weak on this stuff, but he might not be the best fellow in the room to follow on science matters.

 

[Abraham3]

BTW Owl, Patrick Moore was booted from Greenpeace and has been an industry shill for years now. His education is in ecology, not climate, not atmosphere, not physics. He hasn't conducted an iota of research or been published anywhere in decades on ANY topic and NOTHING on which he ever DID research had ANYTHING to do with the climate or global warming. Why in heaven's name should we have the slightest interest in his opinion on these matters? Would you like to know what my dog thinks? Same value.

And my dog's been dead for three years.

 

[Meister]

BTW Owl, Patrick Moore was booted from Greenpeace and has been an industry shill for years now. His education is in ecology, not climate, not atmosphere, not physics. He hasn't conducted an iota of research or been published anywhere in decades on ANY topic and NOTHING on which he ever DID research had ANYTHING to do with the climate or global warming. Why in heaven's name should we have the slightest interest in his opinion on these matters? Would you like to know what my dog thinks? Same value.

And my dog's been dead for three years.

Such a typical tactic coming from the left wing nuts.....if they don't like what somebody says, they attack the messenger....you Abe are part of the left wing nuts.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

The ecologist, who worked with Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986 and left “not necessarily by his own choice,” went on to found Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental and sustainability consulting firm in Vancouver.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” Moore said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Confessions of a ?Greenpeace Dropout? to the U.S. Senate on climate change | Watts Up With That?

You religious AGW cultists must be butthurt that somebody that high up on the environmentalist food chain could possibly turn on your flock and tell the truth.

 

[mamooth]

Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.

Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.

In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.

 

[Theowl32]

Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.

Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.

In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.


--------------------------------------

The fact that mamooth is arguing that man made global warming is truly happening is proof in itself that it is a global scam. Seriously, is there a dumber poster on this board? Rightwinger and truthmatters gives him a run for his money, but I think he takes the cake for the dumbest of all left wing hacks.

No offense.

 

[Meister]

Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.

Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.

In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.

Why don't you read the thread with my own opinions? Every once in a while I like to break out the quotes and sources....goofball.
I can't help if your religion doesn't allow you to use your own mind with just a touch of common sense and let you think for yourself.
If you did you would see that it is political with your religious AGW movement.