Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

[OohPooPahDoo]

^ Mating call of the Climactic Jihadist

Other than the fact scientists are coming to conclusions you don't like, why do you oppose peer review?

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

1930? Where did you even get that from? The plot I show indicates the peak in ~1944 wasn't reached again until ~1972.


It stopped "working" as you call it because of atmospheric sulphates that block out the sun.

Injecting particulates into the air as actually been proposed has a last resort "solution" - decades from now after you morons have allowed to fuck everything up but finally you're all dead, we'll have to do SOMETHING to fix the issue - so the upside of doing this might be worth more than the downside. The obvious downside of injecting particulates into the air to stop warming is the reduction in light hitting the Earth's surface will mean lower crop yields.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why wasn't AGW working until after 1972?

Is the AGWCult now saying that the CO2 produced after 1972 is different and more potent?

So all the imaginary effect of AGW happened AFTER 1972?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why wasn't AGW working until after 1972?

It was. Its effect was smaller than the affect of aerosols. That is no longer the case.

Is the AGWCult now saying that the CO2 produced after 1972 is different and more potent?

No. You are a total and complete moron though, I am saying that for sure.

 

[edthecynic]

I can name a source it's called common sense!

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You mean the one that only goes up to 1972?

LOL!!! What a fucking moron.

So your Theory is that it's the CO2 created after 1972 that responsible for the "Warming"?

Do you even know what the Theory is?

No, CO2 offset the normal cooling cycle from the 1930s to 1970s. The warming that followed the 1970s is a result of the normal warming cycle accelerated by CO2.

The theory is that CO2 is modulating the normal warming and cooling cycles into a warming cycle followed by a flat cycle instead of a cooling cycle. There are still cycles from all the other things that effect global temperature but they are not strong enough to offset the warming effect of CO2 to cause a cooling cycle. So now you get accelerated warming during the natural warming cycles and flat cycles during the natural cooling cycles.

Get it???

What "normal cooling cycle"? You got pwned by your own chart and now your tap dancing around it

You know, your insane fellow Cult Member Old Rocks claims Warmer "Scientists" believe that a wisp of CO2 caused "Wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend" That's not on the chart either

So there was NO WARMING until 1972, correct? The chart shows NO WARMING, correct?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why wasn't AGW working until after 1972?

It was. Its effect was smaller than the affect of aerosols. That is no longer the case.

Is the AGWCult now saying that the CO2 produced after 1972 is different and more potent?

No. You are a total and complete moron though, I am saying that for sure.

What?? Aerosols? What?

Just admit you got PWNED by your own chart.

Aerosols ate the AGW until 1972, then once the aerosols were dealt with the Deep Pacific Ocean ate the Warming.

Oh, there's warming, but the Chart is a DENIER!!!!!

PWNED by your own chart and you call me stupid

LOL

The Chart is a DENIER!! Only possible explanation

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ DENIER!!!

 

[edthecynic]

^ Mating call of the Climactic Jihadist

Other than the fact scientists are coming to conclusions you don't like, why do you oppose peer review?

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

Answered in post 80.
1930 to 1970 should have been a cooling cycle like the period from 1880 to 1910, but CO2 flattened that cycle out. We are in another flat cycle now that should also have been a cooling cycle, but this cycle is even flatter than 1930 to 1970. Probably the next cooling cycle will not even be flat, just a slowdown in warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Other than the fact scientists are coming to conclusions you don't like, why do you oppose peer review?

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

1930? Where did you even get that from? The plot I show indicates the peak in ~1944 wasn't reached again until ~1972.


It stopped "working" as you call it because of atmospheric sulphates that block out the sun.

Injecting particulates into the air as actually been proposed has a last resort "solution" - decades from now after you morons have allowed to fuck everything up but finally you're all dead, we'll have to do SOMETHING to fix the issue - so the upside of doing this might be worth more than the downside. The obvious downside of injecting particulates into the air to stop warming is the reduction in light hitting the Earth's surface will mean lower crop yields.

So you can demonstrate this in a lab setting, correct?

You're not just making shit up with every post, right?

You can show a 120PPM increase in CO2 (or whatever it was up to 1972) would cause x degrees of warming and how aerosols and/or sulfates (are they the same thing? I didn't think so, but you'll probably just make up something in your next post Aerosol sulfates) stifles the "Warming"

Eagerly awaiting your next post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Other than the fact scientists are coming to conclusions you don't like, why do you oppose peer review?

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

Answered in post 80.
1930 to 1970 should have been a cooling cycle like the period from 1880 to 1910, but CO2 flattened that cycle out. We are in another flat cycle now that should also have been a cooling cycle, but this cycle is even flatter than 1930 to 1970. Probably the next cooling cycle will not even be flat, just a slowdown in warming.

Why should it have been a "Cooling cycle" When did you guys make that up?

 

[edthecynic]

So your Theory is that it's the CO2 created after 1972 that responsible for the "Warming"?

Do you even know what the Theory is?

No, CO2 offset the normal cooling cycle from the 1930s to 1970s. The warming that followed the 1970s is a result of the normal warming cycle accelerated by CO2.

The theory is that CO2 is modulating the normal warming and cooling cycles into a warming cycle followed by a flat cycle instead of a cooling cycle. There are still cycles from all the other things that effect global temperature but they are not strong enough to offset the warming effect of CO2 to cause a cooling cycle. So now you get accelerated warming during the natural warming cycles and flat cycles during the natural cooling cycles.

Get it???

What "normal cooling cycle"? You got pwned by your own chart and now your tap dancing around it

You know, your insane fellow Cult Member Old Rocks claims Warmer "Scientists" believe that a wisp of CO2 caused "Wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend" That's not on the chart either

So there was NO WARMING until 1972, correct? The chart shows NO WARMING, correct?

Incorrect.

The chart shows cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1930, and a flat period from 1930 to 1970, if the chart continued to the present it would show another warming cycle from 1970 to 2000 and another flat cycle from 2000 to now. CO2 has eliminated the cooling cycles and replaced them with flat cycles.

Get it now???

 

[edthecynic]

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

Answered in post 80.
1930 to 1970 should have been a cooling cycle like the period from 1880 to 1910, but CO2 flattened that cycle out. We are in another flat cycle now that should also have been a cooling cycle, but this cycle is even flatter than 1930 to 1970. Probably the next cooling cycle will not even be flat, just a slowdown in warming.

Why should it have been a "Cooling cycle" When did you guys make that up?

Because if there never were cooling cycles we would be much warmer, as future generations will find out!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why wasn't AGW working until after 1972?

It was. Its effect was smaller than the affect of aerosols. That is no longer the case.

Is the AGWCult now saying that the CO2 produced after 1972 is different and more potent?

No. You are a total and complete moron though, I am saying that for sure.

What?? Aerosols? What?

Just admit you got PWNED by your own chart.

Aerosols ate the AGW until 1972, then once the aerosols were dealt with the Deep Pacific Ocean ate the Warming.

Oh, there's warming, but the Chart is a DENIER!!!!!

PWNED by your own chart and you call me stupid

LOL

The Chart is a DENIER!! Only possible explanation

Actually the point of the chart is to illustrate the warming trend has paused for much longer than 14 years and still cotinued. The warming that occured after 1972 was unprecedented. Do I need to furnish the remainder of the chart or do you have access to a computer?

Unfortunately I sometimes forget that I'm talking to mostly illiterate morons on this message board. Your capacity to understand even the most basic concepts rivals that of a Basset Hound.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

1930? Where did you even get that from? The plot I show indicates the peak in ~1944 wasn't reached again until ~1972.


It stopped "working" as you call it because of atmospheric sulphates that block out the sun.

Injecting particulates into the air as actually been proposed has a last resort "solution" - decades from now after you morons have allowed to fuck everything up but finally you're all dead, we'll have to do SOMETHING to fix the issue - so the upside of doing this might be worth more than the downside. The obvious downside of injecting particulates into the air to stop warming is the reduction in light hitting the Earth's surface will mean lower crop yields.

So you can demonstrate this in a lab setting, correct?

You're not just making shit up with every post, right?

You can show a 120PPM increase in CO2 (or whatever it was up to 1972) would cause x degrees of warming and how aerosols and/or sulfates (are they the same thing? I didn't think so, but you'll probably just make up something in your next post Aerosol sulfates) stifles the "Warming"

Eagerly awaiting your next post.

The concept of radiative forcing is one of the most fundamental concepts of climate science. The fact you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of this very basic concept is evidence that causes me to believe you are a complete hack, totally uninterested in the truth.


The radiative forcing of CO2 can be directly computed from its absorption cross section. Its no more deceitful that using the laws of gravity to calculate how long it will take a rock to fall.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Frank just flat out lies...you cant debate people like him

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah the IRS can't recover or find backups for two years worth of e-mails so the point of this thread is what?

 

[Ernie S.]

There's not really much out there. There's only about half a dozen or so qualified scientists who deny AGW. He should know one of their names by name if he has done any reading at all on the subject.

There's a radio talk show host named Todd Schnitt that has a list of links to 6 or 700 articles about shoddy science, fabricated data and massaged computer models. I used to refer to it often, but it appears that those pages are restricted to "premium members" these days.

k

There are thousands of articles written by respected men of science that should indicate to anyone who hasn't shoved his head up his ass that the science is far from settled.

That may be true, but almost all of these articles are not subject to peer review, and most of them are written by the same half a dozen or so people.

Then there's the question of just what is the ideal temperature of the planet.
Who the hell are we to pick an arbitrary date and say global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees C from this point. Why not pick another point and claim global temperature has gone down 1.3 degrees?

I agree! Why not? Go ahead an tell us the last time global temperatures were 1.3 degrees Centigrade higher than they are now. I'd love to know!

Un true. But relax. I'm not going to pay for access to Schnitt's archives

 

[Ernie S.]

And as to the last question: I have no idea. Reliable temperature records that could give us a clear and reliable average global temperature only go back at best 100 years. We do know that temperatures have varied a lot in the last, say 1,000 years, but we can't reliably tell by how much.

Best guess with computer models and analysis of ice cores, etc. is that average global temperature rose about .09 degrees from 0 AD through 1,000 AD and about 0.5 degrees since.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank just flat out lies...you cant debate people like him

Want to shut Frank up?

1. Post the experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature and lowers ocean pH

And now you have to add, it's probably easy because Experiment 1 Fails,

2. but show how sulfate/aerosols (Did Ooohpah ever clear that up) prevents the above. You guys should be crowding the labs to show there no temperature increase, because, we all know there isn't any increase

I started as a skeptic, I have no skin in the game. But I've been amazed at the number of lies and the vast scope of the fraud that is AGW, so yeah, I know you're lying. You know you're lying, or it you don't you're too dumb to know you've been lied to

AGWCult 1930-1972: The Sulfate Aerosols ate my Global Warming!

AGWCult 2014: The Pacific Ocean, the deep Pacific Ocean ate my global Warming

If you don't know you're being lied to, you're just plain stupid

 

[ClosedCaption]

Frank just flat out lies...you cant debate people like him

Want to shut Frank up?

No, I'll give you enough rope to keep hanging yourself