Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

If we explained it clearly to you, no bulls**t, would you even believe us? You are up to your eyeballs in that crap, and you seem to love it there. Happy Cremation Day, ya twit.

Richard94611

+Try me and see. I want to see your reasoning. Or are you just reacting emotionally ? We cannot have a discussion if you refuse to discuss.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first 50 years of this time period.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has also increased over the last 100 years-- from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest.

Independent data from orbiting satelites have been continuosly measuring global temperatures since the 1970's and indicate that over the last 25 years there has actually been a slight decrease in overall global temperatures.

Assuming that at least part of the source of CO2 additions in the last 50 years is anthropogenic (man-made), the likely scenario is (at the level of additions involved) that CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are an effect of temperature-- not the other way around. The perturbation of CO2 equilibrium has not had the proportional effect on temperature that greenhouse activists predict.

EconomistDon

What is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day c*****e c****e?

CO2 is only 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. That is only 0.04 percent!!! CO2 is a proven green-house gas, but at 0.04 percent, it's contribution to warming is negligible. Water vapor is a far greater percentage of the atmosphere and has a far greater contribution to warming. Have you ever noticed that nights stay warmer under cloudy skies?

And let's talk about the food supply that you are so worried about. It is not plausible that corn will ever stop growing in the US; but if it did, we would buy it from Canada. And we would grow oranges north of Florida.

What really amazes me is that alarmists call us science deniers. But it is alarmists who are not just deniers; they are science ignorant. We are not going to starve because of g****l w*****g, our coastal cities will not be inundated by the ocean that is rising by a paltry 6 inches per century, and disease will not run rampant. If warmer temperatures cause disease, why aren't people dying in Miami and Mexico City? Richard, you must stop believing the crazy talk and think about the actual science.

Richard94611

Obviously we have differing sources for what we each call “science.”

quote=EconomistDon]What is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day c*****e c****e?

CO2 is only 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. That is only 0.04 percent!!! CO2 is a proven green-house gas, but at 0.04 percent, it's contribution to warming is negligible. Water vapor is a far greater percentage of the atmosphere and has a far greater contribution to warming. Have you ever noticed that nights stay warmer under cloudy skies?

And let's talk about the food supply that you are so worried about. It is not plausible that corn will ever stop growing in the US; but if it did, we would buy it from Canada. And we would grow oranges north of Florida.

What really amazes me is that alarmists call us science deniers. But it is alarmists who are not just deniers; they are science ignorant. We are not going to starve because of g****l w*****g, our coastal cities will not be inundated by the ocean that is rising by a paltry 6 inches per century, and disease will not run rampant. If warmer temperatures cause disease, why aren't people dying in Miami and Mexico City? Richard, you must stop believing the crazy talk and think about the actual science.[/quote]

EconomistDon

[/quote]

Your source for science is government contractors who will say wh**ever is necessary to keep the research grants coming from Uncle Sugar. My source is independent, unbiased scientists who do not rely on government grants for their well being. My source is also a long list of courses in chemistry, physics, biology, and mathematics --- all that I could squeeze into my college schedule.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

All the Facts that refute Man Made G****l W*****g.
Now they have changed their BS to Man Made C*****e C****e.

More CO2 is good.
Plants love it.
Farmers should love it.
More food production.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Yep!

Richard. What are your sources?

You seem to have a stake in the G****l W*****g fight.

Here lets try again:
The '97% consensus' of scientists on c*****e c****e is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz4JLPs9xQq

NaturalNews) The brain-dead l*****t media isn't really in the news business anymore. It's actually in the business of zombie control... with the zombies being, of course, the l*****t libtard obedient propaganda swallowers who are easily fooled by sleight-of-hand trickery being paraded as science. (Then again, there are also CONtards on the right who are easily fooled by fraudulent "GMO science," so the criticism deserves to be equally distributed across the political establishment...)

If you've ever has the misfortune of listening to the libtard l*****t media, you've probably heard the claim -- repeated like a mantra chant to Gaia -- that "97% of scientists believe in man-made c*****e c****e" (or some similar paraphrased version of this fraudulent claim).

Fortunately, there's a book by Mark Steyn that helps sort out the t***h from the fiction. It's called A Disgrace to the Profession and features short essays and articles by scientists who speak out against the g****l w*****g / c*****e c****e h**x being perpetrated on the world.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz4JLQI0Rxa

Kazudy

C*****e c****e is a h**x. There I said it, end of debate. Let's move on now people.

Richard94611

EconomistDon,

With all due respect, I don't want to spend much time today refuting just about everything you state in your post right now because I have other things to do. However, in the next few days I will go through the list of your errors one by one.

The first is that you equate the volume of water vapor and of carbon dioxide to the amount of their respective effects on the climate. Volume has NOTHING to do with it. You should be looking at the flows of energy in relation to each substance. With carbon dioxide, energy from sunlight enters to atmosphere and is trapped in the carbon dioxide. As the quantity of energy increases, so will the temperature. For all practical purposes, the energy (heat) remains in the carbon dioxide.

While it is true that far more energy flows into the water vapor, because there is so much more of it, it is also true that the energy there does not build up the way it does in carbon dioxide. The water vapor reaches a saturation point, and turns to rain. The rain falls, then evaporates, a process that requires energy. So the energy that was trapped in the water vapor is used up in the process of evaporation rather than remaining and heating the surroundings.

If you want to see this process easily, go wash your hands in a place that has airblowing hand dryers instead of towels. At the beginning of the process, your hands will feel cold because energy is taken up by the process of evaporation. Once the water on your hands has evaporated, your hands will begin to feel warm from the heat of the blowing air, which is no longer causing the cooling (energy-absorbing) effects of evaporation.

This is simple, accurate, straight-forward science.

I will deal bit-by-bit with some of the other scientific mistakes in your post, but I just don't want to spend more time on them right now. It is Sunday and I have other things to do. I will get to them later.

Richard94611

You didn't squeeze hard enough, or you slept through class.

Richard94611

The end of the most important part of this debate has come and gone, as most of the world's people that consider science and c*****e c****e believe that it exists, that it is anthropogenic, and that it poses many serious dangers to mankind. What remains of the discussion is comprised of little skirmishes like the ones in this forum, skirmishes that affect nothing other than the revelation that c*****e-c****e deniers don't understand evidence or science or for their own emotional reasons won't accept evidence.

Richard94611

Eagleye13, I have no stake in the g****l w*****g discussion. I'll only be around a few more years and after that you and your children can starve or fry. For me, I think this is a mtter more of having an interest in observing how people can ignore or twist evidence. Fortunately, most of the governments in countries where I have friends are taking measures now to alleviate the effects of c*****e c****e. You seem not to be careful when you read things on the Internet to discern what is reliable information and what is not. That the 97% figure was settled long, long ago as accurate seems not to have made a dent in your thinking.

Richard94611

You are focusing on the wrong thing. The crux of the matter lies in examining where energy from sunlight goes when it hits carbon dioxide and where it goes when it hits water vapor,
.

Richard94611

"Basic biology" ? You know so little about this subject that you are even unaware of whast science you should be looking into to undersxtand what is going on with climate. Chemistry and physics, eagleye. Chemistry and physics.