peter11937 Loc: NYS

Funny, not a singe "scientist named in your article. Factually, it is wrong as well. The atmosphere retained heat, which the article does not state , comes from the SUN, that WATER VAPOR, which they blow off, accounts for 95% of that temp. retention, CO2 less than 4%, and all the rest just over 1.1. Further, there is no accounting for the anthropogenic contribution. Ab igure that is, expressed as a percentage, about 0.28% of the total. Simply put, Without any human influence at all, the Earth's atmosphere would have 99.72% of the temporary heat retention ability that it does now. An amount that does not support the idea that it is humanity causing c*****e c****e. Also, this all fails to account for the effects of the oceand retention of the Sun's energy, which is substantial and distributed by the many currents and counter currents around the world, nor does it account for the effects of the cloud cover or the causes of cloud formation, such as cosmic ray density in the upper atmosphere.
If you want scientists in the field the home pages of Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. John R. Christy to na e a very few, disagree with the anthropogenis warming theory as well. Where are the scientists, other than Michael "Hockey-stick" Mann?

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Exactly! :thumbup:

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Yu reality deniers know that manbearpig, Algore said that it has already happened....fear mongering is not science. Fla, most of it is CORAL, and was, in fact, underwater at some time in the distant past, long before man had the ability to walk upright or forecast weather, under water. Between the last glaciation and now, the oceans have come up 350 feet, and there's not much more than can possibly melt as long as Antarctica stays where it is. Last I checked it has been there for over 3 million years and will be there another 3 million years , after that, all bets are off.

Ricko Loc: Florida

Richard-something that is believed to be true by some is not a "fact" but rather an "opinion". As Patrick Moore said, the science is not settled and nobody can either prove or disprove his statement. This is another liberal scare tactic to be used by Obama for wealth t***sfer from the USA so that every country can be equal which is his convoluted view of how the world should be. We just experienced 30 inches of g****l w*****g in the DC area. Good Luck America !!!

Ricko Loc: Florida

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Peter, to many of these left wing clowns the newspaper comic page is science. Good Luck America !!!

Artemis

Great link Paul :thumbup: Who is WMO ? It is The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.

Who is PragerU /Dennis Prager~Dennis Prager is a neoconservative radio host, professional tone troll, and conspiracy theorist who believes that the United States is a Christian nation, and that it's under attack from "secular l*****ts" who control the media, universities, public education system, and other institutions. Despite being a fairly extreme conservative, to the point of being a weekly WND columnist, he does moderate on certain issues such as a******n and, to his credit, he does seem to know quite a bit about religion and aspects of United States history.

One link being biased, the other not.

Artemis

Your opinion is not a fact nor an absolute.

angery american Loc: Georgia

If all the Humans are liberal democrats and morons like you....THEN bring on the FLOOD...American needs a good enema to flush all you crappy, stinky bastards out..

PRM2014

C*****e C****e is the worlds greatest H**X ever pulled over on the people of the world. All a bunch of crooks, the likes of Big Al Gore and Obama the Blowhard, and many many more. Don't believe it for one second.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Hey Mr. Far Left Leaner, is there a chance that you read all of the link provided by Paul? I would say that you failed toward the end of that one since the last three paragraphs indicated that if you don't accept everything from IPCC you must be one of those deniers. I do not so that makes me one of those denying righties. It seems to me that some of you from the far left just won't ever see the letters IPCC included in all this. Do you remember that the first lie told by the IPCC had something to do with hockey sticks?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I will have to say that you are just as biased one way as I am the other. I suggest that you read the last three paragraphs of the WMO article that just brags on the letters IPCC. Here are those words for you to read to see just how biased the WMO is, at least as bad as we are. Now give some thought to which is the biased link.

[Further information]on the Greenhouse effect and its causes can be found in the IPCC’s frequently asked questions section: What is the greenhouse effect?, How do Human Activities Contribute to C*****e C****e and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

[Further information]can be found on Carbon Dioxide and its human origins in the IPCC’s frequently asked questions section: Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

[More in depth information] on expected impacts and elements of c*****e c****e can befound in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, working group 1, specifically chapter 9 on understanding and attributing c*****e c****e.

I will accept your words about Prager but think that you should tell me what IPCC you can find something other than what I say about that "thing".

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

That good flushing may be very needed. For instance, about three years ago our good old EPA was very near k*****g off our entire cow herd, or at least trying to do so. They were talking very strongly about taxing farmers for the farts their cattle blew out and many farmers were thinking seriously about selling their cattle out. Those foolish people surely didn't consider the fact that the dinosaurs, ruminants, also, could fire shots of methane gas in one fart that would dwarf several cattle, at once. Anyway they backed down but just before the witch in charge of the EPA resigned started talking like that again.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

No one denies the fact that c*****e c****es. It always has and always will. The question is what drives c*****e c****e is at issue. I believe that it is a combination of the Sun's energy output, which varies in cycles, the shape of Earth's orbit, which is not perfectly round, but an oval that varies over time, the axial tilt, which varies over a 24,000 or so year period, and Cosmic rays (neutrons stripped from their atoms), then the rest is how the Earth handles the changes, air currents, ocean currents, counter currents, cloud cover , location of the continents, volcanic activity levels, and other lesser factors such as the makeup of the atmosphere. As that has stabilized these last few hundred million years, that alone, much less the altering of CO2, a gas that is less than one percent of the atmosphere (380 to 400 parts per million) to which humanity contributes less than 1/2 of one percent it is exceptionally extremely unlikely that human generated CO2 affects climate or effects any changes.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Have you ever tried to stack all this on one of these reality deniers, with any success? I have always wondered if they know anything about how trees are being planted by those who cut trees.

Talking about the facts you listed to warmers is like trying to convince fence posts that they could relocate if they wanted to.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

The accurate facts about so called greenhouse gas is that 95% of that is WATER VAPOR. CO2 is under 4%, of that >4 percent 0.28 percent is from humans. Exactly how do you think that tiny amount drives climate Do you understand the BENEFITS of more CO2 in the atmosphere??