What caused this Climate skepticism uptick ?

[ding]

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

I see. So what do you believe I have posted that is made up?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

 

[ding]

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

What a lovely improvement.

That has always been the case.

 

[Fenton Lum]

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

What a lovely improvement.

That has always been the case.

Nah, that's your bias.

 

[ding]

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

I don't disagree that it was politicized. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

 

[ding]

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

What a lovely improvement.

That has always been the case.

Nah, that's your bias.

That can be proven simply enough. I have just provided you my objective basis for my belief in this matter. If you can't provide your objective basis for your belief, then it is you who is biased. Fair enough?

 

[Fenton Lum]

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

What a lovely improvement.

That has always been the case.

Nah, that's your bias.

That can be proven simply enough. I have just provided you my objective basis for my belief in this matter. If you can't provide your objective basis for your belief, then it is you who is biased. Fair enough?

I recall your religious exchanges. If you can be different here, terrific.

 

[ding]

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

What a lovely improvement.

That has always been the case.

Nah, that's your bias.

That can be proven simply enough. I have just provided you my objective basis for my belief in this matter. If you can't provide your objective basis for your belief, then it is you who is biased. Fair enough?

I recall your religious exchanges. If you can be different here, terrific.

I am the same everywhere. I do my best to objectively argue my beliefs.

 

[ding]

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

 

[ding]

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The "discussion" moved out of the scientific arena into the political/predatory capitalism arena, where there is no reality.

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

Any way you wish to make it sound in your head is fine with me, have a wonderful day.

 

[ding]

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that the science is settled or that it points to man made global warming. The world we live in today is classified as an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation and glacial-interglacial cycles. It is geologically rare and possibly unique. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. The transition to an icehouse world began about 5 million years ago and was driven by plate tectonics/land mass distribution and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today. Radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming. Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations. The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials. We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2. The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity. It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature. What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed. Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years. There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.

Do you have any basis for your belief other than they say so? Because I would love to hear why you believe what you do.

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

Any way you wish to make it sound in your head is fine with me, have a wonderful day.

My exact words were: "It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?"

And from that you got, "there you go again, assigning points of view"

What else should I conclude other than you had no good answer to my question?

You could have said, I don't believe in AGW? You could have told me what your basis was for believing in AGW. You did neither. Clearly, you painted yourself into a corner with no good way out other than to feign righteous indignation.

 

[ding]

Are we done here?

 

[Fenton Lum]

It is a very tough and important question for human life on the planet, and like many of the disease processes we've (humanity) as yet been unable to resolve, my guess is there will never be one lone contributor variable identified. It is just a tad difficult to believe human activity has had no impact at all. I would have prefered to see that answered by the science. Unfortunately now, we will never have a reasoned societal conversation on the topic.

Once it moved into the politcal arena in america, it had to become a religion of sorts with only an all or nothing "solution" or "discussion". That's just who we are as a society. And, the power structure has a continual vested interest in keeping the masses dysfunctionally hating each other. And we never give them much resistance on that at all.

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

Any way you wish to make it sound in your head is fine with me, have a wonderful day.

My exact words were: "It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?"

And from that you got, "there you go again, assigning points of view"

What else should I conclude other than you had no good answer to my question?

You could have said, I don't believe in AGW? You could have told me what your basis was for believing in AGW. You did neither. Clearly, you painted yourself into a corner with no good way out other than to feign righteous indignation.

As I said pard, have a lovely day.

 

[ding]

Fair enough. It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

Any way you wish to make it sound in your head is fine with me, have a wonderful day.

My exact words were: "It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?"

And from that you got, "there you go again, assigning points of view"

What else should I conclude other than you had no good answer to my question?

You could have said, I don't believe in AGW? You could have told me what your basis was for believing in AGW. You did neither. Clearly, you painted yourself into a corner with no good way out other than to feign righteous indignation.

As I said pard, have a lovely day.

Sure, let me know when you can tell me what the basis for your beliefs are.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Yeah see, there you go again, assigning points of view, have a nice day bub.

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

Any way you wish to make it sound in your head is fine with me, have a wonderful day.

My exact words were: "It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?"

And from that you got, "there you go again, assigning points of view"

What else should I conclude other than you had no good answer to my question?

You could have said, I don't believe in AGW? You could have told me what your basis was for believing in AGW. You did neither. Clearly, you painted yourself into a corner with no good way out other than to feign righteous indignation.

As I said pard, have a lovely day.

Sure, let me know when you can tell me what the basis for your beliefs are.

Never satisfied you before hon.

 

[ding]

Wow, it only took me asking you a question to make you run away and you believe that I am biased? I believe the more likely cause was that I have walked you straight up to your incongruity and you could not face the reality that you have no basis for your belief other than you were told to think that way.

Any way you wish to make it sound in your head is fine with me, have a wonderful day.

My exact words were: "It seems that you believe in manmade global warming. If that is your belief, why do you believe that?"

And from that you got, "there you go again, assigning points of view"

What else should I conclude other than you had no good answer to my question?

You could have said, I don't believe in AGW? You could have told me what your basis was for believing in AGW. You did neither. Clearly, you painted yourself into a corner with no good way out other than to feign righteous indignation.

As I said pard, have a lovely day.

Sure, let me know when you can tell me what the basis for your beliefs are.

Never satisfied you before hon.

I see so it is because of me that you can't explain the basis for your belief. I never knew I was so powerful and could control your actions.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Real physicists discussing physics, not silly political statements.