NBC decides to censor truth of atmospheric temp data being fudged in 2005

[EMH]

I think you have the intelligence of a 4 year old.

You have the credibility of a taxpayer funded Zionist Fascist Traitor, which you are.

 

[Crick]

Translation - the Co2 FRAUD will not even attempt to answer the most basic climate questions like

Your questions violate the maxim that there's no such thing as a stupid question. They hadn't seen yours.

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?

Probably has something to do with the 14 million square miles of land surrounding the South Pole.

because to do so truthfully would be to ADMIT Co2 DOES NOTHING and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE

Do you believe the CO2 absorption spectrum available from HITRAN is valid?

 

[EMH]

Probably has something to do with the 14 million square miles of land surrounding the South Pole.

which has NOTHING TO DO WITH Co2, but rather WHERE LAND IS, and LAND MOVES.... VERY GOOD!!!

Do you believe the CO2 absorption spectrum available from HITRAN is valid?

All gas molecules absorb part of EM spectrum. Co2 absorbs WEAK IR. O3 absorbs strong UV. Increased atmospheric Co2 does nothing according to highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

And you just admitted that the atmosphere is not the cause, the position of land is....

 

[ding]

You have the credibility of a taxpayer funded Zionist Fascist Traitor, which you are.

You ass fuck truth and logic.

 

[Crick]

which has NOTHING TO DO WITH Co2, but rather WHERE LAND IS, and LAND MOVES.... VERY GOOD!!!

CO2 levels at the North and South Poles are constantly near identical. So when you ask me why one pole has more ice than the other, it would have been idiotic to have tried to tell you it was due to CO2. So, you trying to claim that I have admitted that CO2 does nothing is just you being a complete fool.

All gas molecules absorb part of EM spectrum. Co2 absorbs WEAK IR.

Why do you characterize it as weak?

O3 absorbs strong UV.

Thank goodness, then, that the world does not radiate it's thermal energy in the ultraviolet.

Increased atmospheric Co2 does nothing according to highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

You think the world's climate scientists have fabricated all the warming data. There was lots of temperature data from all over the planet, from the scientists of all the nations of the world, long before Spencer collected his fucked up set of satellite and radiosonde data. If everyone was in on it and no true data was coming out of the system, where did Spencer's data come from?

And you just admitted that the atmosphere is not the cause, the position of land is....

I did no such thing. You're stupid and you lie: two characteristics that put you far BELOW Einstein, the Jew.

 

[EMH]

So when you ask me why one pole has more ice than the other, it would have been idiotic to have tried to tell you it was due to CO2.

What is known as THE IDIOCY of the CO2 FRAUD....

Why do you characterize it as weak?

Good Lord, did you ever pass a high school science course??




Search inside image

Electromagnetic Spectrum - Basic Introduction​

Watch

 

[EMH]

long before Spencer collected his fucked up set of satellite and radiosonde data

Translation - "fucked up" means highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2...