Evidence that global warming IS happening

[SSDD]

We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?

Can you explain to the class how a real greenhouse works?

And are you claiming that CO2 and so called greenhouse gasses behave in the same manner?

Hmmmmm?

See, unlike Mamooth, I think you actually do know the subject. I think you whore for grants and see facts as "pliable" in pursuit of grants. How far will you go to keep the welfare flowing into your pocket?

I would like to see some evidence that a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere has ever been measured and quantified....Surely with 97% of scientists on board, it has actually been measured...Hasn't it?

The answer is no, it has not been measured. It is a hypothesis unprovable by any known experiment...unmeasurable by any known technology....and fervently believed in by people whose intelligence and ability to think critically is questionable.

 

[rdean]

The climate has changed only once in the entire 6,000 year history of the world. And that was Noah's flood. Then God pulled the plug. But put it back in before all the water could run out.

 

[Abraham3]

We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?

Can you explain to the class how a real greenhouse works?

Yes, but it would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.

And are you claiming that CO2 and so called greenhouse gasses behave in the same manner?


Hmmmmm?

Yes I am. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.

See, unlike Mamooth, I think you actually do know the subject.

That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.

I think you whore for grants and see facts as "pliable" in pursuit of grants. How far will you go to keep the welfare flowing into your pocket?

I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor. I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable. The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.

For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I. Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that is simply not the case. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried. Grant money pays for the conduct of their research. It does not pay their salary. It does not make them rich. It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.

 

[flacaltenn]

We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?

Can you explain to the class how a real greenhouse works?

Yes, but it would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.



Yes I am. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.

See, unlike Mamooth, I think you actually do know the subject.

That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.

I think you whore for grants and see facts as "pliable" in pursuit of grants. How far will you go to keep the welfare flowing into your pocket?

I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor. I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable. The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.

For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I. Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that is simply not the case. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried. Grant money pays for the conduct of their research. It does not pay their salary. It does not make them rich. It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.

Not quite Bullwinkle.. I've been a Staff Mgr for groups of research scientists in industry and YES --- we were salaried.. But the TIMECARDS were charged to the Govt projects and Grants that I got by flying my ass to DC twice a month and SELLING with all the right "buzz words" and hot button issues of the day...

And I also worked as a contractor in the Govt side. And it may not be grants per se that determine the size of the their tech staff -- but their BUDGETS are based on how well they respond to and address the "politically correct" issues of the year...

 

[SSDD]

The climate has changed only once in the entire 6,000 year history of the world. And that was Noah's flood. Then God pulled the plug. But put it back in before all the water could run out.

According to you and yours, that seems to be the general consensus. You seem to believe that the climate is static and has been static forever till the time when the internal combustion engine was invented and then the climate started to change.

We skeptics on the other hand spend a great deal of time pointing out that the climate is always changing and asking you believers what is going on in the climate today that didn't happen back before the internal combustion engine was invented. So far, you have not provided any examples.

 

[SSDD]

I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor. I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable. The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.

You may fetch coffee for an engineer...or dump out an engineer's trash, or even pass by an engineer's home on your way to and from work...but you are no engineer. Far to many very basic errors in your arguments....

 

[Abraham3]

I have two words for you

LAPSE RATE​

Oh, and a third, critical term I almost forgot

Asshole​

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would like to see some evidence that a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere has ever been measured and quantified....Surely with 97% of scientists on board, it has actually been measured...Hasn't it?

The answer is no, it has not been measured. It is a hypothesis unprovable by any known experiment...unmeasurable by any known technology....and fervently believed in by people whose intelligence and ability to think critically is questionable.

About a dozen years ago, when there was still a lot more evidence supporting the AGW position, I was in a debate similar to this one. It dawned on me that the person I was debating had no interest in the facts. It was vitally important to them that AGW be real, they desperately needed it to be real. It was then that I stopped debating global warming, and decided that I would only mock the proponents. So I apologize in advance for not engaging in serious debate with the zealots here.

I posed the question of greenhouses to Abraham because the question itself reveals the fraud involved in AGW.

A greenhouse works by impeding convection with a physical barrier. In convection, water vapor traps heat and carries it away. The glass keeps the vapors trapped and thus retards convection. If the greenhouse becomes too warm, opening windows at the top of the greenhouse allows convection and cools the atmosphere inside.

So, does the atmosphere of Earth work this way? Is there a physical barrier of CO2 that blocks convection? Did we 'close a window' that was keeping the Earth regulated at a cooler temperature?

Well, no... Since we sit in the vacuum of space, convection outside of our atmosphere would quickly result in the extinction of all life on the planet. Further, CO2 is not a physical barrier at all.

Greenhouses retard convection, the mechanism that Abraham misattributes retards radiation. I know, it sounds like I'm picking nits, but this is actually a vital question, because unlike the physical barrier impeding convection, the process of retarding radiation is far more complicated.

The basic greenhouse effect works like this;

A key concept in this is "loading." the reality is that the components of the troposphere cannot exceed 100%. In simple terms, for there to be more CO2, there must be less of another gas. So the way CO2 would affect the transfer of radiation in to space is by replacing a gas that has a lower ability to absorb and delay transference. To affect Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect the CO2 would need to displace an inert gas.

Abraham has a financial stake in promoting the myth of AGW. When the con fails, it will literally impede cash from taxpayers from flowing into his pockets. So I expect him to fight the exposure of the AGW fraud with everything he has.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, but it would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.

So, whether greenhouse gasses actually function as a greenhouse is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect?

Yes I am. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.

Then your claim is that CO2 is a physical barrier to convection?

That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.

It wasn't a complement.

There are two possible explanations for your postions; ignorance or fraud.

Mamooth is clearly ignorant, blindly reciting talking points that he has no hope of understanding.

I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor. I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable. The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.

Then you are indeed like Mamooth, arguing from a position of ignorance.

For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I. Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that is simply not the case. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried. Grant money pays for the conduct of their research. It does not pay their salary. It does not make them rich. It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.

In most cases, grant monies DO flow into the pockets of researchers. Now the students who do the actual work are unpaid, but Michael Mann is living it up on taxpayer bucks.

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, but it [explaining how a grower's greenhouse works] would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.

So, whether greenhouse gasses actually function as a greenhouse is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect?

Yes, and I think almost everyone here already knew that. If you were thinking you were going to impress someone with that tidbit, you might check with Skookerasnoc or Crusader Frank. Otherwise, I think you'll find you're out of luck.

Yes I am [claiming that CO2 and greenhouse gases work in the same manner (being one and the same)]. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.

Then your claim is that CO2 is a physical barrier to convection?

Obviously not. I never said or implied or intended any such thing. I'd appreciate it if you ceased trying to put words into my mouth particularly when your obvious intent is to con me into agreeing to a falsehood.

That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.

It wasn't a complement.

Yes it was. You just wish it hadn't been.

There are two possible explanations for your postions; ignorance or fraud.

There seems to be only one for yours.

Mamooth is clearly ignorant, blindly reciting talking points that he has no hope of understanding.

I disagree and I find it ironic that you would make such a comment.

I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor. I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable. The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.

Then you are indeed like Mamooth, arguing from a position of ignorance.

1) You have corrected me on nothing.
2) You have corrected Mamooth on nothing.
3) You have yet to convey the slightest hint of original or advanced knowledge on any of the topics of discussion here
4) Your behavior is that of a child.
5) My response - informing you that I am an engineer - was in response to your contention that I do research and profit from research grants. It was intended to point out that you were wrong on that point; as you've been wrong on everything else about which you've bent our ears.

For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I. Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that is simply not the case. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried. Grant money pays for the conduct of their research. It does not pay their salary. It does not make them rich. It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.

In most cases, grant monies DO flow into the pockets of researchers. Now the students who do the actual work are unpaid, but Michael Mann is living it up on taxpayer bucks.

I don't want to say you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about, so I will just say that you are incorrect.

Find us an objective source that details grant money being provided to researchers as a direct compensation rather than a stipend to cover reasonable expenses incurred in the course of conducting the funded research.

 

[Kosh]

Still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate.

Lots of AGW religious mantra, but no real science to back up their religion.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate.

Lots of AGW religious mantra, but no real science to back up their religion.

Hey,

That's the job of the noaa, ipcc, Hadley center, and every major sciecific organizion on this planet. They should have a page for that.

Slackers!

 

[Abraham3]

Don't encourage him Matthew.

 

[Kosh]

Still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate.

Lots of AGW religious mantra, but no real science to back up their religion.

Hey,

That's the job of the noaa, ipcc, Hadley center, and every major sciecific organizion on this planet. They should have a page for that.

Slackers!

And still no links to any datasets with source code to show their proof, just the tired old look at the AGW cult propaganda sites.

 

[Kosh]

Don't encourage him Matthew.

Yes please don't as I will ask for you to back up your AGW cultist claims using actual science (which none of you have done thus far).

 

[Abraham3]

I thought the rest of you deniers liked Kosh. Why won't any of you be honest with him?

 

[Kosh]

I thought the rest of you deniers liked Kosh. Why won't any of you be honest with him?

Mathew is not a denier he is a AGW cultist like yourself, who does not believe in science.

Yet you still won't post links to datasets with source code to prove that CO2 drives climate (the basis of your religion).

Come on now, can you do it or not? If so then do so...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann's tree rings confirms the altered data fed into the predetermined conclusion AGWCult model

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China

 

[Kosh]

Like I keep posting Global Warming/Climate Change will happen with or without humans on this planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Like I keep posting Global Warming/Climate Change will happen with or without humans on this planet.

I see. So, you will die, whether or not you smoke or do herion. So, why not do both?