The truth about CO2 and climate change

[Luddly Neddite]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -




And don't hassle me for bringing an idiot right wing politician into this. Some dunderhead put this thread in Politics instead of Environment, where it belongs ...

 

[Kosh]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..

Please provide the dataset with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Roy Spencer? Really? Bahahahahahaha.

So can you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

Do you have any real science to back up your stance other than the A typical AGW cult religious mentality?

AGW is the accepted paradigm according to 97% of climate scientists. You are among neither the 97% that agree, nor the 3% that disagree since you aren't even a scientist. Yet your claim, by your own admission, is in the denialist camp. As such, it is for you to provide a scientific refutation of AGW. It is not for me to provide data in support of the 97% since it is widely published and available to anyone who cares to read it, including you. And it is certainly not for me to provide documentation to support your view. That is your problem, not mine. I didn't post the graph above, and am not under any obligation to support it. That falls to the person who did post it. Got anything like that?

These far left/AGW cult members still continue to post their bunk even after it proven wrong over and over again, showing it is based on a religious agenda not rooted in science..

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.

In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences.

This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

 

[Kosh]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -

More proof that the far left/AGW cult will push their religious agenda and ignore real and actual science.

Once again proving that the real science deniers are the far left/AGW cult..

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

You claimed the Arctic is growing.

The fact is the Arctic is melting, and rapidly.

The end.

the arctic ice grows each year when its winter in the northern hemisphere, the antarctic ice grows when its winter in the southern hemisphere. the opposite happens when its summer in either hemisphere. Its caused by the earth's tilt on its axis. It has nothing to do with CO2, or chinese coal fired electric plants.

If you want to talk about pollution, lets do that. But pollution does not cause climate change.

 

[Redfish]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -




And don't hassle me for bringing an idiot right wing politician into this. Some dunderhead put this thread in Politics instead of Environment, where it belongs ...

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLLUTION--------EVERONE AGREES THAT WE NEED TO STOP POLLUTING OUR PLANET.

POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

PUT THE BONG DOWN AND THINK

 

[Siete]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -

More proof that the far left/AGW cult will push their religious agenda and ignore real and actual science.

Once again proving that the real science deniers are the far left/AGW cult..

your pretty charts are "real science" ????

you're a REAL moron.

 

[Kosh]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -

More proof that the far left/AGW cult will push their religious agenda and ignore real and actual science.

Once again proving that the real science deniers are the far left/AGW cult..

your pretty charts are "real science" ????

you're a REAL moron.

Yeah they were taken form IPCC studies, NOAA charts, NASA, tec..

So I guess that mean those agencies are bunk...

You see the far left will even denounce their own sources if it is convenient for them.

So that would be a NO on the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Oh well I asked the cult member to post actual science and so far not one has produced it..

 

[Siete]

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -

More proof that the far left/AGW cult will push their religious agenda and ignore real and actual science.

Once again proving that the real science deniers are the far left/AGW cult..

your pretty charts are "real science" ????

you're a REAL moron.

Yeah they were taken form IPCC studies, NOAA charts, NASA, tec..

So I guess that mean those agencies are bunk...

You see the far left will even denounce their own sources if it is convenient for them.

So that would be a NO on the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

no one is saying it doesn't .. but you ARE saying dumping billions of tons of pollution in the atmosphere on a daily basis ISN"T effecting the climate ... and you can't prove that.

pretty charts ... try something shiny too.

Oh well I asked the cult member to post actual science and so far not one has produced it..

 

[Kosh]

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -

More proof that the far left/AGW cult will push their religious agenda and ignore real and actual science.

Once again proving that the real science deniers are the far left/AGW cult..

your pretty charts are "real science" ????

you're a REAL moron.

Yeah they were taken form IPCC studies, NOAA charts, NASA, tec..

So I guess that mean those agencies are bunk...

You see the far left will even denounce their own sources if it is convenient for them.

So that would be a NO on the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

no one is saying it doesn't .. but you ARE saying dumping billions of tons of pollution in the atmosphere on a daily basis ISN"T effecting the climate ... and you can't prove that.

pretty charts ... try something shiny too.

Oh well I asked the cult member to post actual science and so far not one has produced it..

So yes that would be a NO to posting any actual science like datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Only been asking the AGW cult that for 30+ years. Still asking and not one can produce the actual science in 30 years..

All I get is the same old far left/AGW religious dogma..

 

[orogenicman]

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..

Please provide the dataset with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Roy Spencer? Really? Bahahahahahaha.

So can you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

Do you have any real science to back up your stance other than the A typical AGW cult religious mentality?

AGW is the accepted paradigm according to 97% of climate scientists. You are among neither the 97% that agree, nor the 3% that disagree since you aren't even a scientist. Yet your claim, by your own admission, is in the denialist camp. As such, it is for you to provide a scientific refutation of AGW. It is not for me to provide data in support of the 97% since it is widely published and available to anyone who cares to read it, including you. And it is certainly not for me to provide documentation to support your view. That is your problem, not mine. I didn't post the graph above, and am not under any obligation to support it. That falls to the person who did post it. Got anything like that?

These far left/AGW cult members still continue to post their bunk even after it proven wrong over and over again, showing it is based on a religious agenda not rooted in science..

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.

In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences.

This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

Do you ever Vette your sources? Ever?

Dr. Michael S. Coffman - is the President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI) and Chief Executive Officer of both Sovereignty International and Local Environment and Resource Network (LEARN). A retired paper industry executive, Coffman is a global warming skeptic, property rights advocate and proponent of the idea that international co-operation represents moves to impose a New World Order on citizens of the world via a system of global governance.[1]
In a biographical note Coffman claims that he "played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) in the U.S. Senate one hour before the ratification vote".[2][3]


Coffman is a former executive for Champion International, a major forestry products and paper mill corporation that has a vested interest in having people believe in global warming denialism. He also has no education or scientific experience whatsoever in climatge science.

Kristie Pelletier - is a friggin office manager. Bhahahahahahahahaha!!!!

This is the best you've got???

 

[konradv]

So yes that would be a NO to posting any actual science like datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..
Only been asking the AGW cult that for 30+ years. Still asking and not one can produce the actual science in 30 years.

You're pushing a red herring here. Climate scientists say CO2 CONTRIBUTES to climate change. No one with any knowledge says CO2 controls climate. So, there are no such data sets that you're requesting. CO2 is only one of a number of factors that influence climate, but it is the one effected by humans. If you haven't seen the relevant data in 30 years, you haven't been looking.

 

[jc456]

Kos -

I have you on ignore mode because you cannot read or write well enough to debate. Hence, I do not see your posts. Hence, you can stop stalking and spamming threads that I post on.

It is what losers do don't you know?

 

[jc456]

In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?

Thanks for answering...and somehow I don't think my stupidity is an issue here.

Let's look at a slightly longer perspective, although I think for most people the fact that the catastrophic drop in ice is EXACTLY the opposite of what you claimed earlier in this thread is probably clear evidence of something....

What do you do you see in this chart, for instance...

History of Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Part 1 Open Mind

and it was once ice free!! You are asking a stupid question to which you want a specific answer. The answer is the Arctic was once free of ice and the planet was fine. Move on!

 

[jc456]

So yes that would be a NO to posting any actual science like datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..
Only been asking the AGW cult that for 30+ years. Still asking and not one can produce the actual science in 30 years.

You're pushing a red herring here. Climate scientists say CO2 CONTRIBUTES to climate change. No one with any knowledge says CO2 controls climate. So, there are no such data sets that you're requesting. CO2 is only one of a number of factors that influence climate, but it is the one effected by humans. If you haven't seen the relevant data in 30 years, you haven't been looking.

exactly, there are no records that show that any CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures. Once you can provide that link that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate we can finish the discussion, until then, you are pushing a red herring.

 

[jc456]

Kosh, when are you going to apologize for deliberately using forged and fudged data?

You're a proud and unapologetic liar for your cult. Hence, everyone correctly assumes everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. The only response necessary to any of your posts is to point out your history of pathological dishonesty.

I see you got your boilerplate out!!! Ha................ you make me laugh soooooo much. It's really insane. Avoid all mirrors!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?

If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two. Alas...

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

 

[jc456]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..

Please provide the dataset with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Roy Spencer? Really? Bahahahahahaha.

So can you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

Do you have any real science to back up your stance other than the A typical AGW cult religious mentality?

AGW is the accepted paradigm according to 97% of climate scientists. You are among neither the 97% that agree, nor the 3% that disagree since you aren't even a scientist. Yet your claim, by your own admission, is in the denialist camp. As such, it is for you to provide a scientific refutation of AGW. It is not for me to provide data in support of the 97% since it is widely published and available to anyone who cares to read it, including you. And it is certainly not for me to provide documentation to support your view. That is your problem, not mine. I didn't post the graph above, and am not under any obligation to support it. That falls to the person who did post it. Got anything like that?

 

[konradv]

exactly, there are no records that show that any CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures. Once you can provide that link that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate we can finish the discussion, until then, you are pushing a red herring.

I don't need records to know that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's can be shown very simply on a lab spectrophotometer. Explain what happens to that radiation in light if the Law of Conservation of Energy. If it's absorbed it has to go somewhere. Statistically half should get emitted out into space and the rest toward earth. What would it do but add to the heat load. Your turn.

 

[JoeNormal]

Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?

If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two. Alas...

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.

 

[jc456]

exactly, there are no records that show that any CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures. Once you can provide that link that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate we can finish the discussion, until then, you are pushing a red herring.

I don't need records to know that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's can be shown very simply on a lab spectrophotometer. Explain what happens to that radiation in light if the Law of Conservation of Energy. If it's absorbed it has to go somewhere. Statistically half should get emitted out into space and the rest toward earth. What would it do but add to the heat load. Your turn.

See the facts are CO2 is logarithmic and as such the more CO2 does not affect climate. So you can either show your experiment that proves your point or accept defeat on the challenge.