Evidence that global warming IS happening

[nodoginnafight]

It is idiotic to "debate" climate change.
It's like trying to debate one of Newton's Laws.

The far right tries to pretend that there is some scientific doubt on the issue. There is not. There is no "scientific conspiracy" among thousands of scientists from dozens of different countries. This suggestion is right up there with holocaust deniers and 9/11 inside job nutballs.

If there is some reason for doubt, why haven't skeptics produced numbers and models in a scientific format for scientific review.

Because they have none. All they have is political rhetoric.

Political questions may remain - the scientific question has not been questioned - scientifically.

Produce your data in a format that can be replicated for proof or disproof and then we'll talk. Until then, the "skeptics" can just walk around with a sticker on their heads that says, "I'm an idiot." It will be a lot quicker.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The most powerful thing the skeptics have is the pause. This alone means doubt and a valid argument that co2 might not be that strong of a green house gas....

 

[ScienceRocks]

The pause of the last 15 years has made climate science look like a total ass to the general public. Skooks is kind of right.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you realize how rare you are in holding such an opinion?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you realize how rare you are in holding such an opinion?

Just pointing out the reality that the past 15 years haven't seen 1/3rd of the warming of the 1980s and 1990's. This is exactly what the public sees.

 

[SSDD]

Do you realize how rare you are in holding such an opinion?

Observing reality is not rare....crazies like you are the actual minority.

 

[Abraham3]

I have multiple quotations from people generally on your side of the argument, to the effect that denying that global warming is taking place or that CO2 causes it, is the choice of the intellectually handicapped. You have now denied both. I'm not sure we have enough in common to have a conversation. We don't seem to be talking the same language.

 

[SSDD]

I have multiple quotations from people generally on your side of the argument, to the effect that denying that global warming is taking place or that CO2 causes it, is the choice of the intellectually handicapped. You have now denied both. I'm not sure we have enough in common to have a conversation. We don't seem to be talking the same language.

We aren't....I speak reality...you speak fiction....I speak observation....you speak model predictions....I win....you lose....I am laughing at you and you are too afraid of the CO2 boogie man to laugh at all.

 

[Abraham3]

I'll just have to try to console myself with the support of >97% of the world's climate scientists.

 

[SSDD]

I'll just have to try to console myself with the support of >97% of the world's climate scientists.

Once more, you console yourself with fiction. I wish it were actually 97%. It would please me to no end to know that I was in such a very small minority who actually understood the science well enough to be a skeptic when the hoax finally comes tumbling down. Like phrenology, and eugenics, and plate tectonics, however, when the climate hoax crumbles, you won't be able to find any real scientist who was in support of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Abraham3]

Show us a non-bullshit study, poll or survey that finds any significantly different number. I have asked for this on numerous occasions and guess-fucking-what?

NOBODY'S GOT ONE​

 

[SSDD]

Show us a non-bullshit study, poll or survey that finds any significantly different number. I have asked for this on numerous occasions and guess-fucking-what?

NOBODY'S GOT ONE​

Thus far all you have is bullshit studies....Why do you want something different from skeptics? Any such study is political in nature and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with supporting the hoax.

 

[Abraham3]

WHERE is a fucking study that says anything different?

I don't want to hear ANYTHING from your shit-eating mouth till you've got one.​

 

[SSDD]

WHERE is a fucking study that says anything different?

I don't want to hear ANYTHING from your shit-eating mouth till you've got one.​

As is said, any such study would be political in nature....there is no place in science for politics...all your studies are bullshit designed to support the hoax. Screaming like a little pussy because someone is telling you the truth doesn't alter the truth a bit. I am genuinely enjoying the fact that I can get so deep under your skin to make you unravel like that. A true exhibition of insecurity on your part. Thanks.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can I see a study showing co2 isn't a green house gas? Or I'd love to see the studies showing if IT IS the low sensitivity. Peer reviewed...

 

[SSDD]

Can I see a study showing co2 isn't a green house gas? Or I'd love to see the studies showing if IT IS the low sensitivity. Peer reviewed...

The term greenhouse is a misnomer...CO2 does absorb and emit very narrow bands of LW radiation but it does not cause warming. And the best performing GCM's are those that are based on a very low sensitivity to CO2 even though they don't do a very good job either...but they are far superior to those which assume 2-4 degrees for doubling.

I will ask you the same question I just asked abraham...

Explain, if the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature on earth, why the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the earth even though it is 30 times further away from the sun than the earth and has an atmosphere composed primarily of hydrogen and helium.

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science does not exist. It is an ad hoc construct that attempts an alternate explanation (other than the ideal gas laws) for the temperature on earth, which (I might add) can't even come close to explaining the temperature on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...an explanation that serves the function of gathering and concentrating political power.

By the way Matthew, there is no study that empirically measures the greenhouse effect....all such claims are false as it has never been measured and quantified outside of a failed computer model of the climate.

 

[Theowl32]

Can I see a study showing co2 isn't a green house gas? Or I'd love to see the studies showing if IT IS the low sensitivity. Peer reviewed...

The term greenhouse is a misnomer...CO2 does absorb and emit very narrow bands of LW radiation but it does not cause warming. And the best performing GCM's are those that are based on a very low sensitivity to CO2 even though they don't do a very good job either...but they are far superior to those which assume 2-4 degrees for doubling.

I will ask you the same question I just asked abraham...

Explain, if the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature on earth, why the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the earth even though it is 30 times further away from the sun than the earth and has an atmosphere composed primarily of hydrogen and helium.

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science does not exist. It is an ad hoc construct that attempts an alternate explanation (other than the ideal gas laws) for the temperature on earth, which (I might add) can't even come close to explaining the temperature on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...an explanation that serves the function of gathering and concentrating political power.

By the way Matthew, there is no study that empirically measures the greenhouse effect....all such claims are false as it has never been measured and quantified outside of a failed computer model of the climate.

Plus, the obvious statistic of the pause of the warming. If CO2 was the major cause, and if CO2 is still being admitted due to human behavior (which all warmists claim and we all know why the governments blame human activity.....$$$) then what is the cause for the pause?


They avoid that like the plague. My prediction is now that the governments have now changed the terminology to "climate change" they will now be shifting into an area (if the cooling trend continues) they will take credit for the warming trend ending.

Get that? There will be a concerted effort (assuming the trend continues like it has over the last 15 years) to take credit for the change.

Count on it.

 

[Abraham3]

You are ALL so incredibly stupid.

Show us some peer reviewed studies by qualified climate scientists that support your nonsense. Do it before you repeat it.

 

[Theowl32]

You are ALL so incredibly stupid.

WHat is the cause for the pause?

Thanks.

Please, go easy on us. Cause we are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers don't you know?

Why, has there been a cooling trend over the last 15 years? Is it because there is less CO2 being admitted? Is that the reason?

If CO2 is the main catalyst to THE GLOBAL WARMING, and IF the CO2 has been admitted at the same rate it has been over the last 50 years, then what is the cause of cooling trend.

That ought to be pretty simple to explain to us.

 

[SSDD]

You are ALL so incredibly stupid.

Show us some peer reviewed studies by qualified climate scientists that support your nonsense. Do it before you repeat it.

The ideal gas laws support my claims. Which physical laws support yours.

I can't help but notice that you didn't
Try to explain the temp on Uranus