Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[orogenicman]

"Winning" exactly what???

Here ya go s0n.........390 pages of education >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dingbat.....I am asking what exactly do you think you're WINNING ???

We are winning simply because the facts show even with all the adjusted lies, fiddling with all the records to keep your lie alive, it is dying...

literally the same website has a page about the problems with cherrypicking short samples of time.

this is literally from the same website.

But you cherry picked the bottom of the trend to show warming.. Coming out of the LIA so this was the bottom of the cooling trend.. but you alarmists fail to recognize it because you think that all warming is man caused..

Tell me, what caused the warming on several occasions over the last 450 million years?
View attachment 39975
View attachment 39979

Tell me if any of those previous warm ups had anything to do with CO2 and why today's is no different than those in the past..

The top graph is irrelevant to the current global warming, since no species that are alive today were alive when the Earth's climate was a hothouse. if that climate comes back at the rate of increase we are seeing today, we undoubtedly will see another mass extinction, possibly including our own species.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here ya go s0n.........390 pages of education >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dingbat.....I am asking what exactly do you think you're WINNING ???

We are winning simply because the facts show even with all the adjusted lies, fiddling with all the records to keep your lie alive, it is dying...

literally the same website has a page about the problems with cherrypicking short samples of time.

this is literally from the same website.

But you cherry picked the bottom of the trend to show warming.. Coming out of the LIA so this was the bottom of the cooling trend.. but you alarmists fail to recognize it because you think that all warming is man caused..

Tell me, what caused the warming on several occasions over the last 450 million years?
View attachment 39975
View attachment 39979

Tell me if any of those previous warm ups had anything to do with CO2 and why today's is no different than those in the past..

The top graph is irrelevant to the current global warming, since no species that are alive today were alive when the Earth's climate was a hothouse. if that climate comes back at the rate of increase we are seeing today, we undoubtedly will see another mass extinction, possibly including our own species.

That graph is extremely relevant to today. It shows that even in those times of high content life thrived while being very similar to our current human functioning bodies.

 

[lake avenue]

"Winning" exactly what???

Here ya go s0n.........390 pages of education >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dingbat.....I am asking what exactly do you think you're WINNING ???

We are winning simply because the facts show even with all the adjusted lies, fiddling with all the records to keep your lie alive, it is dying...

literally the same website has a page about the problems with cherrypicking short samples of time.

this is literally from the same website.

But you cherry picked the bottom of the trend to show warming..

Exactly my point. I have no real opinion on the matter right now because I think more research needs to be done. I'm showing you the dangers of cherry-picking, which you were originally doing.

Coming out of the LIA so this was the bottom of the cooling trend.. but you alarmists fail to recognize it because you think that all warming is man caused..

I had just posted earlier in the thread that I don't claim that warming is man caused.

Tell me, what caused the warming on several occasions over the last 450 million years?
View attachment 39975
View attachment 39979

Tell me if any of those previous warm ups had anything to do with CO2 and why today's is no different than those in the past..

I don't know nor do I claim to know.

 

[lake avenue]

Dingbat.....I am asking what exactly do you think you're WINNING ???

We are winning simply because the facts show even with all the adjusted lies, fiddling with all the records to keep your lie alive, it is dying...

literally the same website has a page about the problems with cherrypicking short samples of time.

this is literally from the same website.

But you cherry picked the bottom of the trend to show warming.. Coming out of the LIA so this was the bottom of the cooling trend.. but you alarmists fail to recognize it because you think that all warming is man caused..

Tell me, what caused the warming on several occasions over the last 450 million years?
View attachment 39975
View attachment 39979

Tell me if any of those previous warm ups had anything to do with CO2 and why today's is no different than those in the past..

The top graph is irrelevant to the current global warming, since no species that are alive today were alive when the Earth's climate was a hothouse. if that climate comes back at the rate of increase we are seeing today, we undoubtedly will see another mass extinction, possibly including our own species.

That graph is extremely relevant to today. It shows that even in those times of high content life thrived while being very similar to our current human functioning bodies.

450,000 years before present? I'm not sure if there were human functioning bodies, and even if they were, they were still not our own species. Interesting graph none the less.

 

[orogenicman]

Dingbat.....I am asking what exactly do you think you're WINNING ???

We are winning simply because the facts show even with all the adjusted lies, fiddling with all the records to keep your lie alive, it is dying...

literally the same website has a page about the problems with cherrypicking short samples of time.

this is literally from the same website.

But you cherry picked the bottom of the trend to show warming.. Coming out of the LIA so this was the bottom of the cooling trend.. but you alarmists fail to recognize it because you think that all warming is man caused..

Tell me, what caused the warming on several occasions over the last 450 million years?
View attachment 39975
View attachment 39979

Tell me if any of those previous warm ups had anything to do with CO2 and why today's is no different than those in the past..

The top graph is irrelevant to the current global warming, since no species that are alive today were alive when the Earth's climate was a hothouse. if that climate comes back at the rate of increase we are seeing today, we undoubtedly will see another mass extinction, possibly including our own species.

That graph is extremely relevant to today. It shows that even in those times of high content life thrived while being very similar to our current human functioning bodies.

The life that lived when temperatures were significantly higher than today were adapted to that environment. Life today is not. Moreover, our civilization is NOT adapted to such high temperatures.

 

[lake avenue]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

 

[nat4900]

There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

It will become increasingly difficult to determine what is caused by nature and what is caused by us since, for better or worse (and mostly for worse) we have become (or at least we think we've become) "nature."

 

[lake avenue]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

 

[nat4900]

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

I've often stated (or thought) the same when discussing an issue with a denier.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

 

[lake avenue]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

 

[IanC]

You said-
"Except that if the aerosols (which tend to cool climate) are MUCH lower than previously though, the CO2 emissions would have a more dramatic effect on global warming, not less."

Your logic is faulty. CO2 is having the same effect as before the study came out. Because aerosols are having less of a cooling effect that means CO2 has to have a proportionally less warming effect. 4-2=2 has turned into 3-1=2.

 

[orogenicman]

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

When natural sources are 96X greater... What man places into the atmosphere has little or no consequence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

What man produces is insignificant to what occurs naturally. What you dont see is the Socialists and UN Agenda 21 folks who want one world government dominated by command and control socialism who have latched on to this non-problem because it can control hydrocarbons and all world economies. its a greed thing.. that is why it is a problem..

 

[orogenicman]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

When natural sources are 96X greater... What man places into the atmosphere has little or no consequence.

30+ billion tons additional ghgs emitted into the atmosphere each year is not an insignificant amount. And don't think I have noticed that not a one of you deniers have ever addressed that issue.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

What man produces is insignificant to what occurs naturally.

Since we have nearly doubled the global concentration from before the industrial revolution, that is not an insignificant quantity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

When natural sources are 96X greater... What man places into the atmosphere has little or no consequence.

30+ billion tons additional ghgs emitted into the atmosphere each year is not an insignificant amount. And don't think I have noticed that not a one of you deniers have ever addressed that issue.

Equating someone as a Holocaust denier is what a fool who has no science to provide any proof does.. Nice to see you stoop right to adhoms and admit you have no empirical evidence to prove anything with..