how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.

In other words you can't account for your logic when it's tested, so you decide to grandstand and divert rather than defend your claims.. Got it...

Next sock please, this one's done..

 

[PMZ]

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.

In other words you can't account for your logic when it's tested, so you decide to grandstand and divert rather than defend your claims.. Got it...

Next sock please, this one's done..

I have not seen anyone tested by you. In fact, I haven't observed anyone trying to debate my science. Just 3ird grade name calling.

That's why your "side" has been so ostracized. Trying to introduce politics into science for your personal benefit. That certainly makes you both a bad scientist and a bad politician.

And unAmerican.

And irresponsible.

And disingenuous.

And ignorant.

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

 

[SSDD]

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

If your position is that algore's inconvient truth was either accurate or precient then not only has it been disputed, but proven flawed...so flawed, in fact, that not even the usual crop of warmist nutters on this board even attempt to defend it. Only the most crazed cultists would even think to try and defend algore or his fiction...you may not have heard but he is considered to be an embarassment to the warmist cause.

 

[PMZ]

From my reference, above:

"The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue."

"The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues."

"Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:"

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:"

"i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

"22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.""

"The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down."

So you're gonna stay in the gutter and boot the BBC.. Do you want it from ABCNews? Or do we have to go get the judges ruling and find all of the misrepresentations that your garbage websites made???

I took my "Thanks" back...

BTW:: HERE'S THE ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPT>> Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Read it and realize that the fact the judge put quotes around the "errors" doesn't tell you jack about what he actually ruled. Samples of the Nine "errors"...

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."


This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]".

According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit.

Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc

The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.


7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.

In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

Hey dude --- those are ERRORS.. When Al Gore says pacific islanders are evacuating to New Zealand and the judge finds NO EVIDENCE OF THAT --- that's not just an 'error' - its a lie..

And the word 'error' is not always used in quotes as asserted by your syphilitic source...

iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):

"Scientific hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases) do not themselves constitute "political views" within the meaning of s407, even if they are doubted by particular political groups. But, in any event, nothing in the 1996 Act (or elsewhere) obliged teachers to adopt a position of studied neutrality between, on the one hand, scientific views which reflect the great majority of world scientific opinion and, on the other, a minority view held by a few dissentient scientists."
Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:


i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407].

Boy Dude, you are doing EXACTLY what you wrongly accuse ME and other clear thinking citizens of USMB of doing.. And that is -- Clinging to the marginal gutter in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.. You lose ---- BADLY...

BBC --- The Trial Judgement, you gonna UNSEE and UNHEAR what I've taught you here?
I put a lot of work into this and since I can't Neg you again right away -- You're now on ignore..

Whoever wrote what you copied and pasted apparently disagreed with the judge who had the responsibility to make the call. Why am I not surprised?

It's all irrelevant at this point. The world has left you behind as it should have. You've earned every bit of your irrelevance.

You are welcome to prattle on with your merry band of science losers here and pretend someone cares about what you wish was true.

History will regard Al Gore as the Paul Revere of AGW. They will regard you as the droppings that he left behind in the road. Aptly so.

 

[PMZ]

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

If your position is that algore's inconvient truth was either accurate or precient then not only has it been disputed, but proven flawed...so flawed, in fact, that not even the usual crop of warmist nutters on this board even attempt to defend it. Only the most crazed cultists would even think to try and defend algore or his fiction...you may not have heard but he is considered to be an embarassment to the warmist cause.

I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers.

Ignorance never wins in the end.

 

[PMZ]

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

If your position is that algore's inconvient truth was either accurate or precient then not only has it been disputed, but proven flawed...so flawed, in fact, that not even the usual crop of warmist nutters on this board even attempt to defend it. Only the most crazed cultists would even think to try and defend algore or his fiction...you may not have heard but he is considered to be an embarassment to the warmist cause.

"Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:"

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:"

"i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

"22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.""

"The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down."

 

[SSDD]

I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers.

Ignorance never wins in the end.

What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass? Be specific.

 

[PMZ]

I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers.

Ignorance never wins in the end.

What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass? Be specific.

That AGW was real and would have extremely costly consequences for mankind. No matter what we do. But the longer that we delay reducing the problem, the more costly those consequences will be.

 

[flacaltenn]

From my reference, above:

"The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue."

"The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues."

"Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:"

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:"

"i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

"22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.""

"The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down."

So you're gonna stay in the gutter and boot the BBC.. Do you want it from ABCNews? Or do we have to go get the judges ruling and find all of the misrepresentations that your garbage websites made???

I took my "Thanks" back...

BTW:: HERE'S THE ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPT>> Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Read it and realize that the fact the judge put quotes around the "errors" doesn't tell you jack about what he actually ruled. Samples of the Nine "errors"...



Hey dude --- those are ERRORS.. When Al Gore says pacific islanders are evacuating to New Zealand and the judge finds NO EVIDENCE OF THAT --- that's not just an 'error' - its a lie..

And the word 'error' is not always used in quotes as asserted by your syphilitic source...

iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):

"Scientific hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases) do not themselves constitute "political views" within the meaning of s407, even if they are doubted by particular political groups. But, in any event, nothing in the 1996 Act (or elsewhere) obliged teachers to adopt a position of studied neutrality between, on the one hand, scientific views which reflect the great majority of world scientific opinion and, on the other, a minority view held by a few dissentient scientists."
Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:


i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407].

Boy Dude, you are doing EXACTLY what you wrongly accuse ME and other clear thinking citizens of USMB of doing.. And that is -- Clinging to the marginal gutter in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.. You lose ---- BADLY...

BBC --- The Trial Judgement, you gonna UNSEE and UNHEAR what I've taught you here?
I put a lot of work into this and since I can't Neg you again right away -- You're now on ignore..

Whoever wrote what you copied and pasted apparently disagreed with the judge who had the responsibility to make the call. Why am I not surprised?

It's all irrelevant at this point. The world has left you behind as it should have. You've earned every bit of your irrelevance.

You are welcome to prattle on with your merry band of science losers here and pretend someone cares about what you wish was true.

History will regard Al Gore as the Paul Revere of AGW. They will regard you as the droppings that he left behind in the road. Aptly so.

OK listen carefully.. What I bolded above it sufficient to justify the following..

You are a fucking moron.. If you think you're promoting a cause --- you're not..

Whose words are "cut and pasted"?? That would be the OFFICIAL JUDICIAL transcript of the JUDGES' own words..

What's "irrelevent" is NOT the WRITTEN VERDICT FROM THE JUDGE and BBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, and the AP..

It's YOU and the horsecrap you are willfully consuming and trying to sell piles of it.

Go do something more suited to your level of retardation and stubborness...

 

[PMZ]

So you're gonna stay in the gutter and boot the BBC.. Do you want it from ABCNews? Or do we have to go get the judges ruling and find all of the misrepresentations that your garbage websites made???

I took my "Thanks" back...

BTW:: HERE'S THE ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPT>> Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Read it and realize that the fact the judge put quotes around the "errors" doesn't tell you jack about what he actually ruled. Samples of the Nine "errors"...



Hey dude --- those are ERRORS.. When Al Gore says pacific islanders are evacuating to New Zealand and the judge finds NO EVIDENCE OF THAT --- that's not just an 'error' - its a lie..

And the word 'error' is not always used in quotes as asserted by your syphilitic source...



Boy Dude, you are doing EXACTLY what you wrongly accuse ME and other clear thinking citizens of USMB of doing.. And that is -- Clinging to the marginal gutter in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.. You lose ---- BADLY...

BBC --- The Trial Judgement, you gonna UNSEE and UNHEAR what I've taught you here?
I put a lot of work into this and since I can't Neg you again right away -- You're now on ignore..

Whoever wrote what you copied and pasted apparently disagreed with the judge who had the responsibility to make the call. Why am I not surprised?

It's all irrelevant at this point. The world has left you behind as it should have. You've earned every bit of your irrelevance.

You are welcome to prattle on with your merry band of science losers here and pretend someone cares about what you wish was true.

History will regard Al Gore as the Paul Revere of AGW. They will regard you as the droppings that he left behind in the road. Aptly so.

OK listen carefully.. What I bolded above it sufficient to justify the following..

You are a fucking moron.. If you think you're promoting a cause --- you're not..

Whose words are "cut and pasted"?? That would be the OFFICIAL JUDICIAL transcript of the JUDGES' own words..

What's "irrelevent" is NOT the WRITTEN VERDICT FROM THE JUDGE and BBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, and the AP..

It's YOU and the horsecrap you are willfully consuming and trying to sell piles of it.

Go do something more suited to your level of retardation and stubborness...

Of course, as is typical, you are wrong. You chose the words of the Prosecuters. I chose the words of the judge in his decision.

Just like those who quote the words of the Antifederalists who lost the debate, as the "founders beliefs".

You keep hoping that there is something substantial behind your positions. There is. Substantial ignorance and a completely out of control ego.

That just doesn't cut it in the face of universal truths.

 

[PMZ]

BTW, I'm not "promoting a cause". I'm representing the truth. That's what you are at odds with. Believe me, truth is way more powerful than your ego.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Ignor"ance IS bliss sometimes...

 

[SSDD]

What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass? Be specific.

That AGW was real and would have extremely costly consequences for mankind. No matter what we do. But the longer that we delay reducing the problem, the more costly those consequences will be.

So show me any proof at all that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm. Show me se example of anything happening in the global climate that is outside the boundaries if natural variability.

What consequences are provably the result of AGW?

 

[PMZ]

What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass? Be specific.

That AGW was real and would have extremely costly consequences for mankind. No matter what we do. But the longer that we delay reducing the problem, the more costly those consequences will be.

So show me any proof at all that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm. Show me se example of anything happening in the global climate that is outside the boundaries if natural variability.

What consequences are provably the result of AGW?

I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.

The changing of the concentration of atmospheric GHG is natural variability. We are headed back towards the conditions at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, the last time that the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was atmospheric.

The following reference has three graphs in the middle of it that's show the correlation between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG, and global temperature.

The instability created by the earth and atmosphere trying to deal with excess energy is the cause of extreme weather. That's to be expected and is intuitively obvious to objective science.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology

 

[SSDD]

I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.

Actually, you have done no such thing. You have claimed some things, but certainly not demonstrated them nor have you provided any proof by way of observed, measured, repeatable experiment that would actually demonstrate the truth of your claims.

If any such proof that CO2 put into the atmosphere by man were causing the climate to warm, you would have no problem at all providing links to that proof. There are no links because there is no proof.

Cimate models are based on the "simple physics" and the trenberth energy budget you claim prove that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm and the climate models are failing miserably because they are based on flawed physics and a gross lack of knowledge regarding the actual energy budget of earth's system.

The changing of the concentration of atmospheric GHG is natural variability. We are headed back towards the conditions at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, the last time that the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was atmospheric.

Who fills your mind with this tripe? At the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, atmospheric CO2 was about 3 times higher than the present level at about 1,300 ppm and the global mean temperature was about 6 degrees higher than the present. Do you bother to look up anything or just spew the lies and hysterics that you got from algore?

The following reference has three graphs in the middle of it that's show the correlation between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG, and global temperature.

Those graphs which you neglected to produce also corelate between the global temperature and the reduced size of women's bathing suits. Rule number one in the scientific method is that corelation does not imply causation and the beleif that it does represents a logical fallacy known as Post hoc or ergo propter hoc or affirming the consequent. If a logical fallacy is all that you have, then you have nothing.

The instability created by the earth and atmosphere trying to deal with excess energy is the cause of extreme weather. That's to be expected and is intuitively obvious to objective science.

Are you saying that there never was "extreme" weather before atmospheric CO2 reached 350 ppm? At what level of atmospheric CO2 did "extreme" weather start? What "extreme" weather that is happening now is unprecedented in the historical record?

You don't seem to have anything to back up any of your claims.

I asked you which claims that algore had made that have come true and to name any "consequences" that are provably the result of AGW. I couldn't help but note that you dodged both questions. Further, you still haven't named a single thing that is outside the boundries of natural variability. Things that happen within the boundries of natural variability are not an indication of a human fingerprint.

 

[PMZ]

I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.

Actually, you have done no such thing. You have claimed some things, but certainly not demonstrated them nor have you provided any proof by way of observed, measured, repeatable experiment that would actually demonstrate the truth of your claims.

If any such proof that CO2 put into the atmosphere by man were causing the climate to warm, you would have no problem at all providing links to that proof. There are no links because there is no proof.

Cimate models are based on the "simple physics" and the trenberth energy budget you claim prove that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm and the climate models are failing miserably because they are based on flawed physics and a gross lack of knowledge regarding the actual energy budget of earth's system.

The changing of the concentration of atmospheric GHG is natural variability. We are headed back towards the conditions at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, the last time that the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was atmospheric.

Who fills your mind with this tripe? At the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, atmospheric CO2 was about 3 times higher than the present level at about 1,300 ppm and the global mean temperature was about 6 degrees higher than the present. Do you bother to look up anything or just spew the lies and hysterics that you got from algore?

The following reference has three graphs in the middle of it that's show the correlation between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG, and global temperature.

Those graphs which you neglected to produce also corelate between the global temperature and the reduced size of women's bathing suits. Rule number one in the scientific method is that corelation does not imply causation and the beleif that it does represents a logical fallacy known as Post hoc or ergo propter hoc or affirming the consequent. If a logical fallacy is all that you have, then you have nothing.

The instability created by the earth and atmosphere trying to deal with excess energy is the cause of extreme weather. That's to be expected and is intuitively obvious to objective science.

Are you saying that there never was "extreme" weather before atmospheric CO2 reached 350 ppm? At what level of atmospheric CO2 did "extreme" weather start? What "extreme" weather that is happening now is unprecedented in the historical record?

You don't seem to have anything to back up any of your claims.

I asked you which claims that algore had made that have come true and to name any "consequences" that are provably the result of AGW. I couldn't help but note that you dodged both questions. Further, you still haven't named a single thing that is outside the boundries of natural variability. Things that happen within the boundries of natural variability are not an indication of a human fingerprint.

What you are providing evidence for, maybe even proof of, are the limitations to your ability to understand and learn. That is not my problem. Nor am I able to solve your problem. Only you can do that.

Let's do first things first.

A body in empty space. A radiant heat source adding energy to it. What happens?

The correct answer of course is that it would increase in temperature until it was radiating out the same amount of energy as it was receiving.

Do you agree?

 

[PMZ]

One of the ways that deniers confuse themselves and others is to ignore the facts of what earth has to do as the concentration of atmospheric GHG increases, vs how it does it.

What it has to do is simple physics. It has to restore systemic energy balance. The only way to do that, given the effect GHGs have on outgoing radiation, is to warm.

No alternatives.

How it does that is enormously complex. For one reason, there are so many interrelated systems involved. The land, the oceans, the ice caps, the atmosphere, clouds, all have to react within themselves and with each other to determine the transition from one level of atmospheric GHG concentration to another. The excess energy to be dealt with from when the concentration changes until the resolution of a higher space perceived temperature that radiates the excess energy into space, drives many dynamics.

It takes supercomputer power just to predict global weather a day or two in advance. Modeling the long term effects of a continually changing GHG concentration through all of the systems that are impacted by the excess energy before final balance is reachieved, is the ultimate in mathematical modeling. And science.

 

[PMZ]

I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.

Actually, you have done no such thing. You have claimed some things, but certainly not demonstrated them nor have you provided any proof by way of observed, measured, repeatable experiment that would actually demonstrate the truth of your claims.

If any such proof that CO2 put into the atmosphere by man were causing the climate to warm, you would have no problem at all providing links to that proof. There are no links because there is no proof.

Cimate models are based on the "simple physics" and the trenberth energy budget you claim prove that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm and the climate models are failing miserably because they are based on flawed physics and a gross lack of knowledge regarding the actual energy budget of earth's system.

The changing of the concentration of atmospheric GHG is natural variability. We are headed back towards the conditions at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, the last time that the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was atmospheric.

Who fills your mind with this tripe? At the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, atmospheric CO2 was about 3 times higher than the present level at about 1,300 ppm and the global mean temperature was about 6 degrees higher than the present. Do you bother to look up anything or just spew the lies and hysterics that you got from algore?

The following reference has three graphs in the middle of it that's show the correlation between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG, and global temperature.

Those graphs which you neglected to produce also corelate between the global temperature and the reduced size of women's bathing suits. Rule number one in the scientific method is that corelation does not imply causation and the beleif that it does represents a logical fallacy known as Post hoc or ergo propter hoc or affirming the consequent. If a logical fallacy is all that you have, then you have nothing.

The instability created by the earth and atmosphere trying to deal with excess energy is the cause of extreme weather. That's to be expected and is intuitively obvious to objective science.

Are you saying that there never was "extreme" weather before atmospheric CO2 reached 350 ppm? At what level of atmospheric CO2 did "extreme" weather start? What "extreme" weather that is happening now is unprecedented in the historical record?

You don't seem to have anything to back up any of your claims.

I asked you which claims that algore had made that have come true and to name any "consequences" that are provably the result of AGW. I couldn't help but note that you dodged both questions. Further, you still haven't named a single thing that is outside the boundries of natural variability. Things that happen within the boundries of natural variability are not an indication of a human fingerprint.

If you really want to learn from the web everything that you need to to understand AGW, here's a good source.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology

 

[westwall]

I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers.

Ignorance never wins in the end.

What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass? Be specific.

That AGW was real and would have extremely costly consequences for mankind. No matter what we do. But the longer that we delay reducing the problem, the more costly those consequences will be.

That is an OPINION idiot. Not a prediction, try again.

 

[westwall]

BTW, I'm not "promoting a cause". I'm representing the truth. That's what you are at odds with. Believe me, truth is way more powerful than your ego.

Science and the scientific method have no interest in truth. They only care about facts. "Truth" is the realm of religion.

You have made it quite plain you are nothing but an ignorant internet troll so I suggest to my fellow USMB'rs that we no longer feed the troll...