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.
I doubt you have any evidence that shows what is accurate and what isn't. For instance, why is it there is a hiatus and that was recognized by your IPCC in AR5 summary? Why? Can you answer that?Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change
tp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/20/school-board-votes-to-ban-materials-that-cast-doubt-on-climate-change/'
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you deniers are such gullible morons....
"Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change"
Translated from denier cult bullshit-speak, that comes out as....
Rational Realists continue their assault on any fraudulent propaganda churned out by the fossil fuel industry to deliberately deceive people about the reality and dangers of the visible and measurable and completely scientific confirmed human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions that severely threaten the future of the human race, our civilizations and agricultural systems, and all the rest of the Earth's lifeforms.
You crazy denier cult dingbats are like the tobacco company propaganda pushers back decades ago, protesting against the ban on tobacco advertising and claiming that your bogus bullshit claiming that smoking is good for you should be given equal time with the medical evidence showing that smoking tobacco causes a host of health problems and was killing close to half a million people every year.
You anti-science retards don't actually HAVE anything that "casts doubt on [human caused] climate change".
There is no doubt about the scientific conclusions about AGW/CC based on the observable evidence as well as the laws of physics.
The world IS getting hotter, the ice IS melting, the seal levels ARE rising....and it all happening at accelerating rates as humans continue to pump tens of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere every year......and you denier cult retards and fossil fuel industry stooges and trolls are just crazy!
especially when a camera comes around, people like to wave at their family and friends watching at home. I see it at every sporting event, car racing as well.At football games you moron!
Now guess where we have seen this?
No, they have not and you're a fool to believe that's the case. The Justice Department is investigating the violations of Exxon/Mobil and others in the fossil fuel industry (violations to which Exxon Mobil has already admitted) that they have been conducting a massive disinformation campaign to convince fools such as yourself (eponymous evidence) that there is some great controversy among scientists as to whether or not the conclusions of the IPCC (and the thousands of scientists studies on which those conclusions are based) are correct. This is PRECISELY what happened with Big Tobacco and Intelligent Design: the manufacture of a non-existent controversy in an attempt to hold back science's revelation of a hazard by the people who profit from the sale of that hazard.If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it?
No theory of the natural sciences can be "proven". Scientists are convinced to accept theories that are never falsified and which satisfy the tests of the scientific method. That is why an enormous majority of climate scientists and scientists in general accept anthropogenic warming..
You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
There are many discredited theories that were once accepted. Choosing not to teach them in public schools is not the same thing as "banning" them. Choosing to call this "banning" is an obvious attempt to cast yourself and your views as victims. That, I'm afraid, is pure bullshit.. If you and your ideas cannot pass scientific muster, their rejection by the scientific community and by those who pick our children's science curriculum is right and proper. Save in some elective course on science history, I would not want my children's time and intellect wasted by some fool telling them that the flat Earth, the demon theory of disease and the practice of choosing food by it's makeup of earth, fire, air and water are viable alternatives to modern theories covering the same topics. Neither the argument that the world is getting warmer due to some "natural" cause nor that it is not getting warmer at all but the world's climate scientists are lying about it are viable assertions.
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming
No, they have not and you're a fool to believe that's the case. The Justice Department is investigating the violations of Exxon/Mobil and others in the fossil fuel industry (violations to which Exxon Mobil has already admitted) that they have been conducting a massive disinformation campaign to convince fools such as yourself (eponymous evidence) that there is some great controversy among scientists as to whether or not the conclusions of the IPCC (and the thousands of scientists studies on which those conclusions are based) are correct. This is PRECISELY what happened with Big Tobacco and Intelligent Design: the manufacture of a non-existent controversy in an attempt to hold back science's revelation of a hazard by the people who profit from the sale of that hazard.
If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
why don't you want the kids to choose what they believe or not. Why do you feel you need to dictate something, anything?If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.
But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.
But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.
So believing in a hypothesis which is not supported by the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence is using your brain? Where exactly is the critical thinking in that proposition? If you can prove your hypothesis with actual fact...observed, measured, quantified data, then do it...if you can't, then your only alternatives are to either admit it, or silence those who are posing questions you can't answer....all the great tyrants in history have followed the same template.
See crick's solution in my sig line...
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?
What is this, international simplistic arguments day?
If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?
The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.
People are making attempts at understanding it.
Others are saying that until we 100% understand it, there is no climate change.
Does that mean you believe humans have not contributed to the atmospheric CO2 level ?Does that mean you believe humans have not contributed to the atmospheric CO2 level or
that the greenhouse effect does not actually take place or
that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or
that the global temperature has not risen as the data show or
that you have simply chosen to reject it all because you believe that's the right thing to do regardless of the facts?
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?
If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?
The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.
Does that mean you believe humans have not contributed to the atmospheric CO2 level or
that the greenhouse effect does not actually take place or
that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or
that the global temperature has not risen as the data show or
What a pant load of liberal revisionist bull shit.. You suck at history as well as science.. The third Reich was left wing radical socialists.. You guys are getting really desperate..Neo Nazis and White Supremacists are Democrat Socialists.“We’ve seen this sort of thing at rallies of neo-Nazis. We’ve seen it at rallies of white supremacists. But to see it at a rally for a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States is outrageous.”
Lol, you're wrong. Hitler hated the socialist and communist. White supremacist are mostly right wingers be they in this country or throughout europe...
why don't you want the kids to choose what they believe or not. Why do you feel you need to dictate something, anything?If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.
But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.
But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.
So believing in a hypothesis which is not supported by the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence is using your brain? Where exactly is the critical thinking in that proposition? If you can prove your hypothesis with actual fact...observed, measured, quantified data, then do it...if you can't, then your only alternatives are to either admit it, or silence those who are posing questions you can't answer....all the great tyrants in history have followed the same template.
See crick's solution in my sig line...
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?
What is this, international simplistic arguments day?
If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?
The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.
People are making attempts at understanding it.
Others are saying that until we 100% understand it, there is no climate change.
No, it means what is being said is not correct and it's time to find something that can be validated. That's all, but of course you wouldn't know that would you, you just believe cause someone said believe. Brain dead is your position. Mine is mind wide open. And I know where I live, there ain't global warming. So factually I have observations on my side, you.....nope!
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?
The thing is...if you don't have the first observed, measured, quantified data supporting claims regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity such as the climate, why would one even suspect there is anything there?
If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?
What if you make a weather forecast that it is going to rain and the rain is going to continue to get heavier so long as X happens and it doesn't rain for two decades and counting...which is more or less what we are seeing....the prediction was increasing warming if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase....CO2 has increased but the warming hasn't...
The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.
So as long as the climate is behaving well within the boundaries of natural variability....again, why would one think that mankind is somehow responsible for the climate behaving well within natural boundaries...and if there exists no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the idea that mankind is causing the climate to behave well within natural boundaries...why would anyone think that even five dollars need be spent on the topic...much less thousands of billions of dollars?
You keep going on and on and on about "observed, measured, quantified data" as if somehow this is your trump card.
There is a lot of data out there. It is observed, measured and quantified, and people are using it to try and figure out what it all means.
As for your analogy, you're completely wrong. We ARE seeing global warming, we are experiencing something different, but we're not sure exactly where it fits. We do know how things work. The problem isn't the scientists here, the problem is people who decide they know better and pick up on the one thing said that proves them right, and dismiss everything else.
You know, this is like the boy who cried wolf, only there isn't a wolf.
On most topics there are people who will say stuff, at the moment it seems popular to say things like "the Democrats founded the KKK" as if it has any bearing on today's world. The same people will be the people who use insults against Obama as an "argument" and the same people who are calling all climate change stuff a fraud because we don't have 100% proof of something.
Just like Putin did when the airliner was shot down over the Ukraine, he put doubt out there, he didn't say it wasn't his weapons that did it. The recent one is "the Russians don't use that type of weapon any more", but the reality is the Russians did use that weapon, and probably had it stockpiled and probably sold it or gave it to the rebels, who then used it.
Using limited facts to try and cause doubt.
I have no problem with people who cause doubt in order to make a decent argument. However there isn't a decent argument going on, just a "you're a little bit wrong, so you're totally wrong", which is not logical at all.
Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical VariationCO2 is not a greenhouse gas, seeing how it is too tiny a percentage of the atmospher
so you're ok with teaching them that they can't challenge something or express an opinion.why don't you want the kids to choose what they believe or not. Why do you feel you need to dictate something, anything?If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.
But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.
Firstly, I believe in getting kids to think for themselves. I've seen it done in a classroom, and done very, very well. It's possible even with kids who are like 11 years old.
Secondly, some things kids need to be told is the way to do things. Like how to behave in society, what's in the food they eat and so on. They do need to be told the relevant facts of things. They do need to learn the rules of society.
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!
School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change
Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.
Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.
But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.
So believing in a hypothesis which is not supported by the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence is using your brain? Where exactly is the critical thinking in that proposition? If you can prove your hypothesis with actual fact...observed, measured, quantified data, then do it...if you can't, then your only alternatives are to either admit it, or silence those who are posing questions you can't answer....all the great tyrants in history have followed the same template.
See crick's solution in my sig line...
The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?
What is this, international simplistic arguments day?
If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?
The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.
People are making attempts at understanding it.
Others are saying that until we 100% understand it, there is no climate change.
No, it means what is being said is not correct and it's time to find something that can be validated. That's all, but of course you wouldn't know that would you, you just believe cause someone said believe. Brain dead is your position. Mine is mind wide open. And I know where I live, there ain't global warming. So factually I have observations on my side, you.....nope!
Yes, it means it's not 100% correct.
That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct.
Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?
If the weather says it's raining outside, and you know there's only a 90% chance it's right, are you going outside in your raincoat, or are you going to say that it's wrong, stuff this, and go out in something non-waterproof?
An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical VariationCO2 is not a greenhouse gas, seeing how it is too tiny a percentage of the atmospher
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9 × 10^18 grams.
The approximate mass of carbon dioxide is 3 × 10^18 grams
A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The weight of CO2 is about a quarter of the weight of water vapor. The volume ratio is about a factor of 10 which is the number to use for back radiation.
In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.
If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. If you insist .04 is a small concentration, you must also insist that water vapor is a trace gas with a small concentration.
Thanks for your link which makes my point, not yours. Here is a quote from your link.Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical VariationCO2 is not a greenhouse gas, seeing how it is too tiny a percentage of the atmospher
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9 × 10^18 grams.
The approximate mass of carbon dioxide is 3 × 10^18 grams
A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The weight of CO2 is about a quarter of the weight of water vapor. The volume ratio is about a factor of 10 which is the number to use for back radiation.
In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.
If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. If you insist .04 is a small concentration, you must also insist that water vapor is a trace gas with a small concentration.
ntent.
The situation is even more extreme than what was presented just above because the greenhouse gases vary in their effectiveness in absorbing thermal radiation. A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2.
