Human Caused Global Warming

[Saigon]

Billy Bob -

That's an excellent and interesting read.

I particularly noted this conclusion:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
• Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations.

This text was edited out of the original text by the blog you linked, but it is in the text on the British Antarctic Survey site.

I'm assuming that you agree with it, given you linked it.

 

[SSDD]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Well, some of us anyway.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the amount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

The problem you will find around here is that the deniers here will argue that no one can prove the greenhouse effect is real. This takes a number of variations. We have those who think CO2 causes some warming but it is a trivial component of the observed warming and essentially irrelevant. We have others who continue to claim that no experiment has ever shown CO2 causing a temperature increase despite having been shown text and video describing several experiments that, of course, show precisely that. We have others who've begun to argue that adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually causes the planet to cool.

We get analogous arguments about the acidification of the oceans: that the amount of CO2 humans have released couldn't possibly have had a significant effect on the ocean's pH to those that argue that CO2 in solution forms not carbonic acid but sodium bicarbonate.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

It's really not possible to judge the Earth's climate from an isolated location for a limited amount of time.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

I'm not sure what all that was supposed to mean. But... the predominant cause of warming and cooling in the Earth's geological past has been the Milankovitch orbital cycles. When changes in the amount of sunlight the Earth receives take place, it tends to change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That has shown itself, at least in studies of the last 22,000 years, to enhance warming and cooling periods. Warming is begun initially by orbital changes but after only a few hundred years, greenhouse warming from increased CO2 becomes the dominant driver. And the extremes in the Earth's past - all of the non-catastrophic changes - took place immensely more slowly than they are taking place today. The same changes in CO2 levels and temperatures that humans have seen in the last 150 years could easily have taken 150,000 years in the pre-human past.

So show those videos of the experiment? However, if you use the mythbuster one, remember what has been pointed out, they didn't show adding 120PPM. They filled the chamber up. Just sayin, you have no link, no video, no anything as proof of an experiment that proves your lousy point! You are challenged Jiminie, or will you lie like your wooden puppet?

They state quite clearly that they are recreating current atmospheric conditions. You think it proper to assume they are lying because that's the only defense you have against the truth.

Tell me....what are current atmospheric conditions...how precisely does energy move through the atmosphere? ...what precisely are the total feedbacks positive and negative? If climate science can't answer all those questions then they are modeling a best guess of current atmospheric conditions

SSDD,
How often I have seen this sort of thing. You want to know absolutely everything about everything before you will admit to anything. I saw the same sort of thing with the tobacco industry trying to say that their cigaretts were safe and non-addictive.

You don't think those would be important things to know if you are going to start making high dollar decisions based on a model of energy flows through the atmosphere? A claim was just made stating that models were duplicating current atmospheric conditions when our knowledge barely scratches the surface on what actual atmospheric conditions are. And my questions are nothing like wanting to know everything...those questions only touch on the basic knowledge necessary if one is going to make the claim that models are replicating current atmospheric conditions.

Good of you to admit that the claim was untrue and that climate science actually knows very little about how energy moves through the system.

 

[SSDD]

There are mountains of evidence and you know it.

There are mountains of bullshit lies and misinformation that is based on fraudulent science but you're too damn stupid to realize it.

Wildcard,
If 99%+ of scientists say that human caused global is real, I think I will go with them. Not you.

Really? Do you realize that 99% of scientists were at one time wrong on most of what we actually know today? Why go with a group that history shows is most assuredly wrong?

 

[jc456]

It's your policy to kill those you don't like, and those who have no use. When one thinks Stalinism, one immediately thinks mammy, saigon, olfraud, crick, blunder, and old crazy ed.

Why don't you put together a collection of quotes from the people you just accused. Something like the collection below of deniers doing precisely what you've accused us of doing.

In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.

I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?

It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid

So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now. But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?

If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..

If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..

I just made one and you're right---it's too expensive to let people with breathing problems live.

Lets see now, if your charts and conclusions are correct, we need to kill all the chinese and indians. Should we nuke them? no, too much fall out. Poison their water? stop shipping food to them? how about the booming populations in indonesia and south america, how do we eliminate them?

Nice part of cults is that they tend to mass suicide.

In this instance, if they are right, their lemmingesque checking out would do an immense bit toward ending the warming they fear most. Provided they all just took dirt naps instead of being roasted and emitting all those nasty pollutants......

Oh Please! Oh God! That would be so fucking awesome! They don't even have to die, just get off the Internet

Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans. I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.

This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult

Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.

Reduce air pollution. Stop breathing. We promise to miss you. But we will enjoy the cleaner air.

I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way. You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation. I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.

The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive. Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.

"If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"

So why wouldn't you stop the damage you do by killing yourself?

Nice collection. Except one thing. I don't see anyone in that list discussing doing away with anyone. Please, if you believe there is a phrase of someone stating to do away with someone point it out. Those quotes don't. All of that is request for volunteers who believe their lives are in danger and a suggested way to avoid that anguish. So, not sure the point.

jc456,
You have all gotten off the track. The point isn't who should do what to who. The point is that human caused global warming is real. I think it was SSDD who came up with the best denier argument against it by talking about how much CO2 the earth naturally produces. As weak as that argument was.

However you want to look at it, the ammount of CO2 humans are responsable for IS having an impact. Maybe it's because the CO2 humans are responsable for comes out in a more concentrated and localized form.

The point is that human caused global warming is real.

Yeah, sure it is.

Idiots like yourself who keep saying it's real DOES NOT make it true.

Wildcard,
Read'em and weep.
View attachment 34295 View attachment 34296

time to invest into some new posts. Same old garbage is still garbage. Thanks for playing.

 

[jc456]

There are mountains of evidence and you know it.

There are mountains of bullshit lies and misinformation that is based on fraudulent science but you're too damn stupid to realize it.

Wildcard,
If 99%+ of scientists say that human caused global is real, I think I will go with them. Not you.

Well first you have to find those 99% don't you think. LOL. ewwwwwwwwwww hahahahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

Billy Bob -

That's an excellent and interesting read.

I particularly noted this conclusion:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
• Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations.

This text was edited out of the original text by the blog you linked, but it is in the text on the British Antarctic Survey site.

I'm assuming that you agree with it, given you linked it.

I'm sorry, but I'd like to know on what page of the article you found these two bullets. Seems I did a search on it, and you know what, it ain't there. hahahaahahahahahaaahaha loser

 

[Old Rocks]

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online

This is from the American Meteorological Society. I think it effectively refutes the above.

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.


Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

 

[jc456]

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online

This is from the American Meteorological Society. I think it effectively refutes the above.

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.


Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

Is there a point in there somewhere? We know where they stand. It is wrong and you know so. You have no evidence. Let's see their experiment that correlates to their comments?

 

[konradv]

Is there a point in there somewhere? We know where they stand. It is wrong and you know so. You have no evidence. Let's see their experiment that correlates to their comments?

Their comments don't have to be based on experiments to be valid. They can be based on observations alone. Just because you don't believe the evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence. You've backed yourself into a corner with a foolish absolute, IMO.

 

[SSDD]

Is there a point in there somewhere? We know where they stand. It is wrong and you know so. You have no evidence. Let's see their experiment that correlates to their comments?

Their comments don't have to be based on experiments to be valid. They can be based on observations alone. Just because you don't believe the evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence. You've backed yourself into a corner with a foolish absolute, IMO.

Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.

 

[konradv]

Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.

You fail to explain what happens to the IR radiation that CO2 absorbs. Failing that, you can't say that observation won't uncover an accelerating warming trend. You point out many things that have not been observed, but don't address the IR story. WHY?!?!

 

[jc456]

Is there a point in there somewhere? We know where they stand. It is wrong and you know so. You have no evidence. Let's see their experiment that correlates to their comments?

Their comments don't have to be based on experiments to be valid. They can be based on observations alone. Just because you don't believe the evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence. You've backed yourself into a corner with a foolish absolute, IMO.

I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed. But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models. Sorry but they don't. 1940 to 1970 friend. Just explain that for me, that's observed.

Still waiting on the experiment. It is how science works k00k!!!!

 

[jc456]

Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.

You fail to explain what happens to the IR radiation that CO2 absorbs. Failing that, you can't say that observation won't uncover an accelerating warming trend. You point out many things that have not been observed, but don't address the IR story. WHY?!?!

It goes out to space you k00k!!!

 

[konradv]

I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed. But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models. Sorry but they don't. 1940 to 1970 friend. Just explain that for me, that's observed.

Still waiting on the experiment. It is how science works k00k!!!!

Sorry, but you don't sound like you know a thing about the science or you'd discuss it. You sound like you're parroting something you heard elsewhere. Want to prove yourself? Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising. Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue. Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?

 

[konradv]

You fail to explain what happens to the IR radiation that CO2 absorbs. Failing that, you can't say that observation won't uncover an accelerating warming trend. You point out many things that have not been observed, but don't address the IR story. WHY?!?!

It goes out to space you k00k!!!

Statistically only 50% would. What happens to the other 50%?

 

[sealybobo]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

So is there a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over the world’s eyes? It seems highly unlikely, considering the numerous studies that show overwhelming consensus among respected scientists that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable.

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.
Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"

 

[sealybobo]

I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed. But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models. Sorry but they don't. 1940 to 1970 friend. Just explain that for me, that's observed.

Still waiting on the experiment. It is how science works k00k!!!!

Sorry, but you don't sound like you know a thing about the science or you'd discuss it. You sound like you're parroting something you heard elsewhere. Want to prove yourself? Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising. Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue. Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Global warming is a hoax says Louisiana congressional hopeful Lenar Whitney PolitiFact

 

[konradv]

Sorry, but you don't sound like you know a thing about the science or you'd discuss it. You sound like you're parroting something you heard elsewhere. Want to prove yourself? Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising. Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue. Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?

Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Global warming is a hoax says Louisiana congressional hopeful Lenar Whitney PolitiFact

Lenar Whitney is a HOAX. Quit stalling and tell me what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

So is there a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over the world’s eyes? It seems highly unlikely, considering the numerous studies that show overwhelming consensus among respected scientists that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable.

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.
Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

75/77 is very convincing.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, but you don't sound like you know a thing about the science or you'd discuss it. You sound like you're parroting something you heard elsewhere. Want to prove yourself? Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising. Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue. Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?

Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Global warming is a hoax says Louisiana congressional hopeful Lenar Whitney PolitiFact

Lenar Whitney is a HOAX. Quit stalling and tell me what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs.

It turns out all the scientists got together and discussed your question and after some serious debate they decided that global warming is real. 97% of them say what you are saying is bullshit.

What we need is a Sunday Morning debate on tv on NBC or CBS or ABC. I wonder why that doesn't happen? Let the world know that global warming deniers and the entire GOP are wrong on this issue and why they are wrong or why they are lying. Oh yea, because the media is corporate owned and controlled.

Even China knows it is real. How dumb do you think us Americans are? Oh yea, half of the 40% of us that vote voted for GOP who deny global warming and the other 60% of us who can vote didn't even vote so I guess we are pretty stupid.

Newt Gingrich admitted a long time ago what the motives are behind denying it. I get it. But what I don't get is why a broke ass like you denies it? Even a lot of middle class Republican voters admit that GW is real. So either you are one of those right wingers who argues EVERY right wing talking point or you own a lot of stock on coal or you work in a coal mine? What is your motivation? I'm assuming its pure brainwashed ignorance but maybe it's more?