Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?
The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?
Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?
Another appeal to authority and not a single shred of empirical evidence.. Just what I expect from idiots like crick and alarmists in general.
Another knowingly unsubstantiated assertion (akam a lie) about AR5. Just what I'd expect from Billy Bob who claims to be an atmospheric physicist
Easy.How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal
There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept
You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.
However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.
- What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
- Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
- Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
- Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
- Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.
I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
American Institute of Physics
97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions.
And there isn't a skeptic on the denier side of this room. Not one.
That's total BULLSHIT Bullwinkle and you know it. There is no evidence whatsoever that 97% of Climate scientists accept the IPCC reports as Holy Scripture. First -- there is a WIDE RANGE of questions and scenarios in those reports and very few SPECIFIC conclusions. And Second -- those conclusions have largely been a moving target over the years.
I don't know where you get this shit. Certainly not was quoted in that crap Nutti SkepSchitScience poll of yours.
And I am a climate skeptic.
Such an erudite reply. I salute the intellect it demonstrates.So manboob is still running around in a circle like a mad dog on a leash tethered to his bedrock of foolishness.
When WE rub your nose in YOUR shit, you dopey bitch, it's to TRY to teach you that you are to go outside when it is time to shit.
Dopey bitch.
You dumb fuck. You don't even know what Tyndall did.Easy.How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal
There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept
You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.
However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.
- What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
- Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
- Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
- Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
- Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.
I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
American Institute of Physics
The notion, expressed in the Tyndall speculation to which you just linked us, of greenhouse gasses being released by humankind somehow causing a greenhouse effect doesn't actually qualify as scientific "evidence."
Besides, the question wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the sanctimonious author of the OP.
We've all had more than plenty of your lazy smirking self-satisfied banalities.
by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999
John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.
In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.
John Tyndall : Feature Articles
John Tyndall said:n my experiments, however, with a tube 4 feet long and polished within, which makes the distance traversed by the reflected rays more than 4 feet, the absorption is only one-tenth of the above amount. In the experiments of Dr. Franz, carbonic acid appears as a feebler absorber than oxygen
In the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."
.........but still, nobody cares!!!
NEANDERTHAL WINNING
I PredictI
And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.
I predicted you'd say that!
And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.
Bullshit !The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?
Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?
It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.
trailer trash are always first to rationalize.Bullshit !The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?
Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?
It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!
Really? But you failed to include a link. Could there be a reason for that? Perhaps, like Silly Billy, you are pulling this out of your ass.You dumb fuck. You don't even know what Tyndall did.Easy.How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal
There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept
You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.
However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.
- What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
- Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
- Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
- Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
- Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.
I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
American Institute of Physics
The notion, expressed in the Tyndall speculation to which you just linked us, of greenhouse gasses being released by humankind somehow causing a greenhouse effect doesn't actually qualify as scientific "evidence."
Besides, the question wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the sanctimonious author of the OP.
We've all had more than plenty of your lazy smirking self-satisfied banalities.
by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999
John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.
In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.
John Tyndall : Feature Articles
And here is what John Tyndall had to say about the absorptive power of CO2...since you seem to respect him so much.
John Tyndall said:n my experiments, however, with a tube 4 feet long and polished within, which makes the distance traversed by the reflected rays more than 4 feet, the absorption is only one-tenth of the above amount. In the experiments of Dr. Franz, carbonic acid appears as a feebler absorber than oxygen
In the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."
In fact, Tyndal didn't seem to be able to talk about CO2 at all without mentioning what a feeble absorber it is...and yet, you believe that a 0.0004 mole fraction is going to burn us all. Are you really that gullible?
Ptrailer trash are always first to rationalize.Bullshit !Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?
It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!
Why did you post something when you have no clue to what it means?trailer trash are always first to rationalize.Bullshit !Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?
It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!
I PredictI
And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.
I predicted you'd say that!
And it is that sort of drivel that has convinced you that AGW is real? Did you notice that there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence in the whole presentation? The whole thing is just some schmekel's opinion.
You dumb fuck. You don't even know what Tyndall did.Easy.How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal
There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept
You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.
However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.
- What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
- Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
- Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
- Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
- Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.
I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
American Institute of Physics
The notion, expressed in the Tyndall speculation to which you just linked us, of greenhouse gasses being released by humankind somehow causing a greenhouse effect doesn't actually qualify as scientific "evidence."
Besides, the question wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the sanctimonious author of the OP.
We've all had more than plenty of your lazy smirking self-satisfied banalities.
by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999
John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.
In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.
John Tyndall : Feature Articles
Bullshit !The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?
Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?
It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!
Another appeal to authority and not a single shred of empirical evidence.. Just what I expect from idiots like crick and alarmists in general.
Another knowingly unsubstantiated assertion (akam a lie) about AR5. Just what I'd expect from Billy Bob who claims to be an atmospheric physicist
