Why do so many people deny climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

Dude, you are so out in left field with this. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The second law states no such thing. The second law says that energy gets spread out randomly with time.

That you are still insisting on this complete nonsense makes it obvious you are incapable of learning.

Yeah, the 2nd Law is his kryptonite.

On the plus side, he doesn't want to waste trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.
An amount that will be overwhelmed by Chinese and Indian CO2.

 

[westwall]

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Look up the Ideal Gas Laws there admiral...

So Westwall also climbs into the clown car.

Here's a hint, clowns. Nothing has been compressed.

The heavier gas (CO2) forces out the lighter gas (O2) thus raising the temps dummy. And you claim to be a "nuclear watch officer"

 

[PMZ]

I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

I thought that you'd claim that it was because all of the green cheese the moon is made of needs to be refrigerated.

I like yours better.

Did it come from the Fox News crack science team?

 

[SSDD]

All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Do you have tourettes or some such syndrome that causes such outbreaks or do you just not know what the heat of compression is? Or are you as I suspect, just a laughing jibbering idiot?

 

[PMZ]

The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

Dude, you are so out in left field with this. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The second law states no such thing. The second law says that energy gets spread out randomly with time.

That you are still insisting on this complete nonsense makes it obvious you are incapable of learning.

Perhaps trying to deny science by using pseudoscience is not a great idea. Perhaps alchemy would lead to a better results.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

I thought that you'd claim that it was because all of the green cheese the moon is made of needs to be refrigerated.

I like yours better.

Did it come from the Fox News crack science team?

It came from the "If we all drive really expensive electric vehicles, the Earth will cool" cult.

I read it in the "Letter from the President". You're still the President, right?

 

[itfitzme]

All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Do you have tourettes or some such syndrome that causes such outbreaks or do you just not know what the heat of compression is? Or are you as I suspect, just a laughing jibbering idiot?

It's a dumb statement.

But, by all means, explain it with references. This I gotta read.

 

[PMZ]

The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

Dude, you are so out in left field with this. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The second law states no such thing. The second law says that energy gets spread out randomly with time.

That you are still insisting on this complete nonsense makes it obvious you are incapable of learning.

Yeah, the 2nd Law is his kryptonite.

On the plus side, he doesn't want to waste trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.
An amount that will be overwhelmed by Chinese and Indian CO2.

What can possibly go wrong with ignoring the future until all of the fossil fuel is gone? For one thing, we wouldn't have to try to adapt to an ever changing climate. And we wouldn't have to create a sustainable energy system. Just close the doors.

Back to the caves. A total conservative victory.

And real progress in solving our overpopulation problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Astrology is far more reliable and predictive than AGW "science"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dude, you are so out in left field with this. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The second law states no such thing. The second law says that energy gets spread out randomly with time.

That you are still insisting on this complete nonsense makes it obvious you are incapable of learning.

Yeah, the 2nd Law is his kryptonite.

On the plus side, he doesn't want to waste trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.
An amount that will be overwhelmed by Chinese and Indian CO2.

What can possibly go wrong with ignoring the future until all of the fossil fuel is gone? For one thing, we wouldn't have to try to adapt to an ever changing climate. And we wouldn't have to create a sustainable energy system. Just close the doors.

Back to the caves. A total conservative victory.

And real progress in solving our overpopulation problem.

What can possibly go wrong with ignoring the future until all of the fossil fuel is gone?

When the fossil fuel is all gone, CO2 from human sources will drop.
Will your whining drop as well?
How many trillions should we spend to emit 10 ppm less into the atmospere?
Should we still spend it if China and India will emit 15 ppm more?

 

[itfitzme]

Astrology is far more reliable and predictive than AGW "science"

You sure, because my model looks like this.



You tell me what the CO2 levels and TSI will be and I'll tell you what the temp rise will be.

And I can guarantee it out preforms your astrology.

 

[SSDD]

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

 

[itfitzme]

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

Odd, because according to the university of texas,

So what do you mean by "The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. "

 

[westwall]

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

Odd, because according to the university of texas,

So what do you mean by "The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. "

Ah yes, good little Kayhoe or whatever her name is.

 

[SSDD]

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Do you have tourettes or some such syndrome that causes such outbreaks or do you just not know what the heat of compression is? Or are you as I suspect, just a laughing jibbering idiot?

It's a dumb statement.

But, by all means, explain it with references. This I gotta read.

You really don't know what the heat of compression is? Strange thing not to know for one who claims to have a clue.

 

[itfitzme]

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

Oh, I get it... Dueling talking points.

"

Models Predicted Too Much Warming, New Data Show | Heartlander Magazine

“The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot ...” Spencer explained.

So, basically, you are just parroting Dr. Roy Spencer....

Anyone can do that....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=340

"The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period."

 

[itfitzme]

Do you have tourettes or some such syndrome that causes such outbreaks or do you just not know what the heat of compression is? Or are you as I suspect, just a laughing jibbering idiot?

It's a dumb statement.

But, by all means, explain it with references. This I gotta read.

You really don't know what the heat of compression is? Strange thing not to know for one who claims to have a clue.

I know what the heat of compression is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how it supposedly fits in with CO2 experiments.

That's the part I don't get. But please do explain oh great guru of failed thermodynamics understanding.

You've already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.

 

[SSDD]

Odd, because according to the university of texas,

So what do you mean by "The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. "

Egads but you are gullible. Want to buy some prime beach front property in colorado? How about central park in NY? The golden gate bridge? The london bridge? How about india? I'll make you a great deal on india.

Do you have any idea what those 10 to-the-22nd-figures mean. They claim an increase of .07 degrees over a span of 50 years....as if we could measure the average temperature of all of the oceans to a hundredth of a degree since 1955.

Again I ask....how f'ing gullible are you exactly? Take a guess.

 

[itfitzme]

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

Odd, because according to the university of texas,

So what do you mean by "The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. "

Ah yes, good little Kayhoe or whatever her name is.

In other words, you have no actual information.

 

[SSDD]

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

Oh, I get it... Dueling talking points.

"

Models Predicted Too Much Warming, New Data Show | Heartlander Magazine

“The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot ...” Spencer explained.

So, basically, you are just parroting Dr. Roy Spencer....

Anyone can do that....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=340

"The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period."

Nope...I think spencer is a charlatan as well. He believes in the magic gas....he just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as you do. I bring up the hot spot because all climate models predict it and demand that it is the human fingerprint on global warming....it doesn't exist and as such falsifies the hypothesis.