On Tucker Carlson an Environmental expert said it all. AGW is a hoax, here is why.

[Mikeoxenormous]

On Tucker Carlson tonight an environmental expert said that with all the candidates harping how within the next 11 1/2 to 80 years the doom of the planet is hanging on a thread and only they (Democrats) can stop it, why did every candidate fly on a jet, spouting tons of CO2, just so they can all get in front of a mic and tell you the end is coming? If AGW was so important why do we need free college, and healthcare for everyone, shouldn't we put all of our money into stopping global warming? Such dimwitocrops who actually believe these Marxist assholes who want to steal your money so they can pad the pockets of the special interest groups like Solyndra that failed solar panel company whose executive walked away with millions of tax dollars. You just cant get more stupid than a worthless liberal (redundant statement).

 

[Billy_Bob]

Marxism is the keeping poor people poor and subservient to the ruling class... that is AGW in a nut shell..

 

[Confounding]

If AGW is real why did all the Democrat Candidates fly to their Debate?

Seriously?

At most you could argue it makes them hypocrites. Only an idiot would take that into consideration when determining the validity of what climate scientists are saying.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If AGW is real why did all the Democrat Candidates fly to their Debate?

Seriously?

At most you could argue it makes them hypocrites. Only an idiot would take that into consideration when determining the validity of what climate scientists are saying.

What are they saying?


The climate always changes, well no duh.


.

 

[Confounding]

What are they saying?

They are saying human activity is impacting the climate in a way that could be detrimental to us down the road. There is not a consensus on the amount of impact we have had/are having.

 

[SSDD]

What are they saying?

They are saying human activity is impacting the climate in a way that could be detrimental to us down the road. There is not a consensus on the amount of impact we have had/are having.

They, meaning climate scientists, or they meaning envirowackos?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers. The fact is that there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly who is saying that again and what actual observed, measured evidence do they have that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What are they saying?

They are saying human activity is impacting the climate in a way that could be detrimental to us down the road. There is not a consensus on the amount of impact we have had/are having.

They, meaning climate scientists, or they meaning envirowackos?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers. The fact is that there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly who is saying that again and what actual observed, measured evidence do they have that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers.

That must be why you've linked to all the papers showing one way only flow of photons, eh?

Or all the papers that show (snicker) that objects at equilibrium cease all emissions. DURR!

 

[SSDD]

What are they saying?

They are saying human activity is impacting the climate in a way that could be detrimental to us down the road. There is not a consensus on the amount of impact we have had/are having.

They, meaning climate scientists, or they meaning envirowackos?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers. The fact is that there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly who is saying that again and what actual observed, measured evidence do they have that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers.

That must be why you've linked to all the papers showing one way only flow of photons, eh?

Or all the papers that show (snicker) that objects at equilibrium cease all emissions. DURR!

I don't need a paper so long as the second law of thermodynamics backs me...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What are they saying?

They are saying human activity is impacting the climate in a way that could be detrimental to us down the road. There is not a consensus on the amount of impact we have had/are having.

They, meaning climate scientists, or they meaning envirowackos?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers. The fact is that there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly who is saying that again and what actual observed, measured evidence do they have that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Generally when scientists "say" a thing, it is in a scientific paper...or at least backed by scientific papers.

That must be why you've linked to all the papers showing one way only flow of photons, eh?

Or all the papers that show (snicker) that objects at equilibrium cease all emissions. DURR!

I don't need a paper so long as the second law of thermodynamics backs me...

I don't need a paper

Which is convenient, because no scientists say what you say.
You're all by yourself.

A modern day Galileo. But instead of finding a simpler solution that works better,
your "solution" is more complicated and doesn't work.

 

[Wuwei]

with all the candidates harping how within the next 11 1/2 to 80 years the doom of the planet is hanging on a thread and only they (Democrats) can stop it, why did every candidate fly on a jet, spouting tons of CO2

That deflection argument is way too juvenile and has been overused time and again:

If you think taxes should increase, "Why don't you give all your money to the government."

If you complain about capitalism practices, "Why don't you move to Russia." (or Cuba, or Venezuela, etc.)

.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't need a paper so long as the second law of thermodynamics backs me...

Ah yes, your second law which is,

Energy can flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object if the low temperature object is man-made or infused with energy any time in the past.

That covers about everything on earth.

.

 

[SSDD]

I don't need a paper so long as the second law of thermodynamics backs me...

Ah yes, your second law which is,

Energy can flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object if the low temperature object is man-made or infused with energy any time in the past.

That covers about everything on earth.

.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat o flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Not my second law...THE second law...I didn't write it but I damned sure am not going to argue with it, or attempt to reinterpret it or suggest that it says something that it doesn't in order to try and rationalize what I believe. Anyone who does is a blithering idiot...just ask the US patent office...

 

[Wuwei]

Not my second law.

Yes it is. You changed it when you reinterpreted the physics term for "spontaneous" to the extent that no process is spontaneous. You said if the low temperature object is man-made or infused with energy any time in the past, energy can flow to the hotter object.

.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry you big whiner......You are the king of reinterpreting....spontaneous has a meaning...sorry you can't deal with it...And I never said that at all...more of your interpreting... Maybe you should take a remedial reading course...something titled reading for comprehension may help you out...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry you big whiner......You are the king of reinterpreting....spontaneous has a meaning...sorry you can't deal with it...And I never said that at all...more of your interpreting... Maybe you should take a remedial reading course...something titled reading for comprehension may help you out...

spontaneous has a meaning...

Is that why there is no source of spontaneous photons in the solar system?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry you big whiner......You are the king of reinterpreting....spontaneous has a meaning...sorry you can't deal with it...And I never said that at all...more of your interpreting... Maybe you should take a remedial reading course...something titled reading for comprehension may help you out...

spontaneous has a meaning...

Is that why there is no source of spontaneous photons in the solar system?

You trying to dethrone wuwei as the king of reinterpreting? Feel free to provide any such quote from me to demonstrate that you aren't a bald faced liar...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry you big whiner......You are the king of reinterpreting....spontaneous has a meaning...sorry you can't deal with it...And I never said that at all...more of your interpreting... Maybe you should take a remedial reading course...something titled reading for comprehension may help you out...

spontaneous has a meaning...

Is that why there is no source of spontaneous photons in the solar system?

You trying to dethrone wuwei as the king of reinterpreting? Feel free to provide any such quote from me to demonstrate that you aren't a bald faced liar...

Feel free to post your list of spontaneous emitters in the solar system.

 

[SSDD]

Whattaya know...no such quote. Guess you are just a liar...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry you big whiner......You are the king of reinterpreting....spontaneous has a meaning...sorry you can't deal with it...And I never said that at all...more of your interpreting... Maybe you should take a remedial reading course...something titled reading for comprehension may help you out...

Yes you said it all.

Response to my saying a chemical light stick emits spontaneously.

Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..

Response to slow decay phosphorescence.

No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.

Response to luminescence from plants and animals

Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.

Response to sunlight passing through hot corona

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

Light bulbs are not spontaneous.

Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous..

Response to clarification: “So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended.”

I don't say it...physics says it.

Conclusion: unless you can name a spontaneous process, nothing on earth is spontaneous. That includes the sun, light bulbs, and any experiment in a laboratory.

You shot yourself in the foot again. So according to you any process involving the sun, such as the earth's climate is not spontaneous. Therefore back radiation is possible.

Light bulbs are man made so they can radiate to each other.

The list of your self contradictions goes on and on.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whattaya know...no such quote. Guess you are just a liar...

Can't think of even a handful of spontaneous emitters, can you? DURR.