The Global Warming Fraud

[Shadowy Man]

Let's see how he is at arithmetic.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

On the Scary Graph we see CO2 increasing by 70 ppmv over a 50-year period.

96% of 70 ppmv is 67.2 ppmv. Is it your claim that the rise over the same period would have been 67 ppmv even WITHOUT mankind's fossil fuel usage?

Don't put words in my mouth as the Left is wont to do and then giggle.
It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Just think of the decomposing biomass all around the world and under the oceans. It is massive.

Citation please that 96+% of the increase in CO2 is from natural sources. If you are saying that “science” says that then surely you can point to the science that says that. Thanks.

 

[Elixir]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books refuting the exaggerations and nonsense ongoing for over forty years.

Fossil fuel shills have been publishing crap they have known to be wrong for decades. Nothing new about that. Calling what their paid performers do “scientific” is only revelatory of your profound and unassailable ignorance.
YAWN.

It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources.

Science is methodology, not a list of RW talking points. It doesn’t “say” ANYTHING.
You don’t know that, so you sound like a complete fool.
Give us a reason to believe your alleged source. Calling it scientific Might convince YOU, but few others.

 

[Jarhyn]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books refuting the exaggerations and nonsense ongoing for over forty years.

Fossil fuel shills have been publishing crap they have known to be wrong for decades. Nothing new about that. Calling what their paid performers do “scientific” is only revelatory of your profound and unassailable ignorance.
YAWN.

It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources.

Science is methodology, not a list of RW talking points. It doesn’t “say” ANYTHING.
You don’t know that, so you sound like a complete fool.
Give us a reason to believe your alleged source. Calling it scientific Might convince YOU, but few others.

The descriptor for such charlatanry is "sciencey": looks kind of like science but isn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

ATLANTIC HURRICANE NUMBERS BY YEAR

Average hurricanes

1900-1917 4.06
2000 - 2017 7.33

To be more thorough I'd do an autorgressibe moving avergae through thr entire record and plot that.

I am not going to take the time to read your links and figure out where it comes from and how you are interpreting.

Hurricane numbers are variable enough that that probably doesn't reach the 95% confidence interval for being not zero.

 

[Ford]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books refuting the exaggerations and nonsense ongoing for over forty years.

Fossil fuel shills have been publishing crap they have known to be wrong for decades. Nothing new about that. Calling what their paid performers do “scientific” is only revelatory of your profound and unassailable ignorance.
YAWN.

It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources.

Science is methodology, not a list of RW talking points. It doesn’t “say” ANYTHING.
You don’t know that, so you sound like a complete fool.
Give us a reason to believe your alleged source. Calling it scientific Might convince YOU, but few others.

The descriptor for such charlatanry is "sciencey": looks kind of like science but isn't.

I'd call it "shitfuckery," but then our newest chew toy would probably put me on ignore...

* waits for the trigger to work...

 

[TSwizzle]

Teach, enlighten, show. Isn't it obvious? Must we explain EVERYTHING to you?
Yes, yes we must. You're very stubborn.

Religious people are very stubborn.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm not going to be suckered into an interminable round of Whack-a-Mole, but let's try to dispose of this latest Ilkishness.

You need to learn what you're arguing about.

“Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century,” according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment.

Fear through ignorance - what a terrible way to go through life.

Let me help.

Just for starters, the Pariah has not read the 841-page report he pretends to cite. Its headline on hurricanes is

Key Message 8: Changes in Hurricanes
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.

Rather different from "no detectable impact." The phrase the Pariah pretends to cite DOES NOT OCCUR AT ALL in the 841-page report.

Google DOES find the sentence; it comes from the sputterings of a certain Steven Koonin, once in the pay of British Petroleum. Wikipedia mentions his denialism.  Steven_E._Koonin#Views_on_climate_change

The Pariah won't read or understand this, but for the benefit of Infidels interested in facts, scientists predict that with rising sea temperatures, hurricanes will INCREASE in intensity, but might actually decrease in number.

And indeed there were 14 Category-5 hurricanes in the Atlantic during the period 2003 - 2019. This compares with only 8 Category-5's over each of two other high intensity periods: 1924 - 1938, 1953 - 1971.

In 2005 there were FOUR (4) Category-5 hurricanes in the Atlantic (Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma), smashing the previous record of two in one year.
There were four consecutive years with Atlantic Cat-5's during 2016 - 2019, beating the previous record of three consecutive years, first set in 2003 - 2005.

Does this help?

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books refuting the exaggerations and nonsense ongoing for over forty years.

Fossil fuel shills have been publishing crap they have known to be wrong for decades. Nothing new about that. Calling what their paid performers do “scientific” is only revelatory of your profound and unassailable ignorance.
YAWN.

It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources.

Science is methodology, not a list of RW talking points. It doesn’t “say” ANYTHING.
You don’t know that, so you sound like a complete fool.
Give us a reason to believe your alleged source. Calling it scientific Might convince YOU, but few others.

"Profound and unassailable ignorance." "Yawn."

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your condescension and pretensions. Those are of course Left Wing talking points but that fact sails right over your godless head.
"Give US"... Oh please.
You Leftists incessantly make demands, one on top of another, and should anything be presented to try to satisfy you, it is summarily rejected by one of your countless Left Wing Talking Points, chief of which is to kill the messenger, not counter with your own sources.

My Ignore List just grew because of your failures cited above. Ciao brutto.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Teach, enlighten, show. Isn't it obvious? Must we explain EVERYTHING to you?
Yes, yes we must. You're very stubborn.

Religious people are very stubborn.

Atheism has been adjudicated a religion by the Supreme Court. This fact triggers atheists.
You have your own set of religious icons, some of which have been placed on headstones similar to how crosses and Stars are placed.

.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Let's see how he is at arithmetic.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

On the Scary Graph we see CO2 increasing by 70 ppmv over a 50-year period.

96% of 70 ppmv is 67.2 ppmv. Is it your claim that the rise over the same period would have been 67 ppmv even WITHOUT mankind's fossil fuel usage?

Don't put words in my mouth as the Left is wont to do and then giggle.
It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Just think of the decomposing biomass all around the world and under the oceans. It is massive.

Citation please that 96+% of the increase in CO2 is from natural sources. If you are saying that “science” says that then surely you can point to the science that says that. Thanks.

Stop being so lazy. Look it up yourself. Anything I present, you will discredit, dispute, reject and condemn utterly. It is your LW Talking Point.

 

[steve_bank]

Astros sweep the Mariners, must be global warming. Is there anything you won’t blame on global warming? Probably not. You want it to be global warming because it’s a religion for you. You’re every bit as bad as flat earthers.

I have no idea what you and the other guy are trying to accomplish on the thread.

Teach, enlighten, show. Isn't it obvious? Must we explain EVERYTHING to you?
Yes, yes we must. You're very stubborn.

I hereby confer on you the honorary IIDB PHD in Internet quoting. This is a rare honor.

I am not stubborn, I learned to be skeptical through hard knocks in my work. I am more skeptcal than you can imagine. The science of climate change makes sense from very basic undergrad science. When you start posting equations and physical science Iyou might get my attention.

Such as
chemistry
heat transfer, thermal radiation, conduction and convection
Laws Of Thermodynamics


People like you are too intellectually lazy to actually teach yourself science. Much easier to inflate your ego by bandering what you find on the net that selctvely supports your thesis.

Oceans are risnd and temperatures are risng. Food production is affected. It is a measurable fact. Ever hear the saying 'fiddling while Rome burns'?

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

We call this weather fella.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

Awk Awk Rapture Awk Awk cult

To be technical weather is local, climate is global. Even with global warming local weather may stay cool or even get cooler. Thermodynamics.

Even with a small increase in ocean temperture (sic) when a cold front enters warmer air rises fast increasing storm intensity.


If global warming is a hox why a is polar ice merlting (sic) increasing sea levels causing islands and coastal cities having to to (sic) deal with risng sea levels? Or is Miami moving roads back from the shore a hoax? Or NYC figuring out hpw (sic) tp (sic) seal subwaY (sic) TUNEELS (sic) DURING STORMS?

You sond (sic) enraptured with your posts. I bet it gets your adrenaline going, it gives you a purpose in an uneventful life?

I challenged Steve Bank to give me a chemistry lesson, viz.,


"I have seen nothing from you or anyone else suggesting any of you are more familiar with these points and the science they embody than I am. Nothing.
But in case I am wrong, why don't YOU give me a chemistry lecture on the subject of your choice. See if you can teach me something, please. I'll do likewise, with my take on the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, including considerations of chirality and non-peptide bonding. Then I will explain why every science lab in the world calls the most famous chart in science by the wrong name."

Steve did not produce anything resembling a chemistry lesson that I requested. He just went Awk, awk.

This is my work product. I did not cut and past it from anywhere else so your searches will be fruitless.

Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The first, original synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of "selecting" 1 out of 20 amino acids making up humans, one at a time, 33,450 times, or 1/20 to the 33,450th power, or 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power. The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints. Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute. They get a great deal worse, in fact.



Only Levorotary amino acids were used, so 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 33,450th power or 1 in 10 to the 10,069th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 33,450th power. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 63,657th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain.



Titin is one of at least 10,000 proteins and enzymes in humans.



If the "sections" were pulled from many other functions, as many argue, it further complicates the process by necessitating new and separate mechanisms for each interchange, and there would have to be many thousands of them to reduce the impossibility down below the 10 to the minus 40 threshold Richard Dawkins concedes as being "impossible."

In fact, to avoid the impossible hurdle of 10 to the -40, you have to restrict original polypeptide synthesis to a scant 21 amino acid residues, calculating chirality and peptide bonding.

________________________________-

Now on to the improperly named "Periodic Table."





Mendeleev published his first "periodic system," and it was renamed "The Periodic Table of the Elements," which grammatically and scientifically improper name has stuck ever since. This misnamed icon can be found in high schools, universities and laboratories all around the world - all ignorantly incorrect!



Scientific papers are carefully edited for content and grammar, while the Table remains overlooked these 150 years by tens or hundreds of millions. How so? Adjectives modify the noun immediately following them. We do not say

"The black man's eye," but rather "The man's black eye." The former is correct; the latter is not. So too The *Periodic (sic) Table*.



It is the elements which are periodic, not the table. It should be renamed "The Table of Periodic Elements." It is not "the black man's eye" and it is not "the periodic table."



"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

What is the difference between a Leftist and an AR-15?

The AR-15 only has one trigger.

 

[steve_bank]

Astros sweep the Mariners, must be global warming. Is there anything you won’t blame on global warming? Probably not. You want it to be global warming because it’s a religion for you. You’re every bit as bad as flat earthers.

Grasping at straws in the wind. I expect you are feeling a bit of anxiey, that feeling you get in the gut that pushes you to make a weak knee jerk reaction post.

 

[steve_bank]

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

We call this weather fella.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

Awk Awk Rapture Awk Awk cult

To be technical weather is local, climate is global. Even with global warming local weather may stay cool or even get cooler. Thermodynamics.

Even with a small increase in ocean temperture (sic) when a cold front enters warmer air rises fast increasing storm intensity.


If global warming is a hox why a is polar ice merlting (sic) increasing sea levels causing islands and coastal cities having to to (sic) deal with risng sea levels? Or is Miami moving roads back from the shore a hoax? Or NYC figuring out hpw (sic) tp (sic) seal subwaY (sic) TUNEELS (sic) DURING STORMS?

You sond (sic) enraptured with your posts. I bet it gets your adrenaline going, it gives you a purpose in an uneventful life?

I challenged Steve Bank to give me a chemistry lesson, viz.,


"I have seen nothing from you or anyone else suggesting any of you are more familiar with these points and the science they embody than I am. Nothing.
But in case I am wrong, why don't YOU give me a chemistry lecture on the subject of your choice. See if you can teach me something, please. I'll do likewise, with my take on the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, including considerations of chirality and non-peptide bonding. Then I will explain why every science lab in the world calls the most famous chart in science by the wrong name."

Steve did not produce anything resembling a chemistry lesson that I requested. He just went Awk, awk.

This is my work product. I did not cut and past it from anywhere else so your searches will be fruitless.

Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The first, original synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of "selecting" 1 out of 20 amino acids making up humans, one at a time, 33,450 times, or 1/20 to the 33,450th power, or 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power. The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints. Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute. They get a great deal worse, in fact.



Only Levorotary amino acids were used, so 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 33,450th power or 1 in 10 to the 10,069th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 33,450th power. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 63,657th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain.



Titin is one of at least 10,000 proteins and enzymes in humans.



If the "sections" were pulled from many other functions, as many argue, it further complicates the process by necessitating new and separate mechanisms for each interchange, and there would have to be many thousands of them to reduce the impossibility down below the 10 to the minus 40 threshold Richard Dawkins concedes as being "impossible."

In fact, to avoid the impossible hurdle of 10 to the -40, you have to restrict original polypeptide synthesis to a scant 21 amino acid residues, calculating chirality and peptide bonding.

________________________________-

Now on to the improperly named "Periodic Table."





Mendeleev published his first "periodic system," and it was renamed "The Periodic Table of the Elements," which grammatically and scientifically improper name has stuck ever since. This misnamed icon can be found in high schools, universities and laboratories all around the world - all ignorantly incorrect!



Scientific papers are carefully edited for content and grammar, while the Table remains overlooked these 150 years by tens or hundreds of millions. How so? Adjectives modify the noun immediately following them. We do not say

"The black man's eye," but rather "The man's black eye." The former is correct; the latter is not. So too The *Periodic (sic) Table*.



It is the elements which are periodic, not the table. It should be renamed "The Table of Periodic Elements." It is not "the black man's eye" and it is not "the periodic table."



"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

OMG!!! Slogans!! I am helpless in the face of a dead man's words!! I give up, just please stop the slogans and quotes I can't bare it.

Some of my favorite quotes.

Attributed to Kelvin. Paraphrasing, if you can't express what you are talking about with numbers your knowledge 'is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind'.


A sign on someone's. 'In god we trust all else bring data'.


You are not talking numerous, you are quoting someone else's view on dat apresnted in a way to make a biased point. Selection bias. Selecting and presenting dat to make a redermined point.

As to green house gasses do yu know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide?

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Astros sweep the Mariners, must be global warming. Is there anything you won’t blame on global warming? Probably not. You want it to be global warming because it’s a religion for you. You’re every bit as bad as flat earthers.

Grasping at straws in the wind. I expect you are feeling a bit of anxiey, that feeling you get in the gut that pushes you to make a weak knee jerk reaction post.

No chemistry lesson for me Steve Bank, after all your proclamations and pretensions?
Explain why everybody has been calling the "Periodic Table" by an incorrect name for almost 150 years. I'm sure you Leftists will come up with some cockamamey story.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let's see how he is at arithmetic.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

On the Scary Graph we see CO2 increasing by 70 ppmv over a 50-year period.

96% of 70 ppmv is 67.2 ppmv. Is it your claim that the rise over the same period would have been 67 ppmv even WITHOUT mankind's fossil fuel usage?

Don't put words in my mouth as the Left is wont to do and then giggle.
It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Just think of the decomposing biomass all around the world and under the oceans. It is massive.

Citation please that 96+% of the increase in CO2 is from natural sources. If you are saying that “science” says that then surely you can point to the science that says that. Thanks.

Stop being so lazy. Look it up yourself. Anything I present, you will discredit, dispute, reject and condemn utterly. It is your LW Talking Point.

He pretends to think he knows more on this topic than the rest of us. How precious!
If he wanted to educate himself — he doesn't — he'd first focus on understanding the distinction between an INCREASE and an ABSOLUTE number.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

Awk Awk Rapture Awk Awk cult
You sond (sic) enraptured with your posts. I bet it gets your adrenaline going, it gives you a purpose in an uneventful life?

This is my work product. I did not cut and past it from anywhere else so your searches will be fruitless.

Titin ... or 1/20 to the 33,450th power, or 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power. The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints. Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute. They get a great deal worse, in fact.

Only Levorotary amino acids were used, so 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 33,450th power or 1 in 10 to the 10,069th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 33,450th power. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 63,657th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain.

Titin is one of at least 10,000 proteins and enzymes in humans. ... If the "sections" were pulled from many other functions, as many argue, it further complicates the process by necessitating new and separate mechanisms for each interchange, and there would have to be many thousands of them to reduce the impossibility down below the 10 to the minus 40 threshold Richard Dawkins concedes as being "impossible."
...

This is a give-away that the Pariah is of the Intelligent Design school. He's pretending to be conversant in arithmetic and chemistry so hasn't yet come to the "ten to the googol-plex; ergo God!" punchline.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Let's see how he is at arithmetic.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

On the Scary Graph we see CO2 increasing by 70 ppmv over a 50-year period.

96% of 70 ppmv is 67.2 ppmv. Is it your claim that the rise over the same period would have been 67 ppmv even WITHOUT mankind's fossil fuel usage?

Don't put words in my mouth as the Left is wont to do and then giggle.
It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Just think of the decomposing biomass all around the world and under the oceans. It is massive.

Citation please that 96+% of the increase in CO2 is from natural sources. If you are saying that “science” says that then surely you can point to the science that says that. Thanks.

Stop being so lazy. Look it up yourself. Anything I present, you will discredit, dispute, reject and condemn utterly. It is your LW Talking Point.

He pretends to think he knows more on this topic than the rest of us. How precious!
If he wanted to educate himself — he doesn't — he'd first focus on understanding the distinction between an INCREASE and an ABSOLUTE number.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

Awk Awk Rapture Awk Awk cult
You sond (sic) enraptured with your posts. I bet it gets your adrenaline going, it gives you a purpose in an uneventful life?

This is my work product. I did not cut and past it from anywhere else so your searches will be fruitless.

Titin ... or 1/20 to the 33,450th power, or 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power. The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints. Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute. They get a great deal worse, in fact.

Only Levorotary amino acids were used, so 1 in 10 to the 43,519th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 33,450th power or 1 in 10 to the 10,069th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 33,450th power. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 63,657th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain.

Titin is one of at least 10,000 proteins and enzymes in humans. ... If the "sections" were pulled from many other functions, as many argue, it further complicates the process by necessitating new and separate mechanisms for each interchange, and there would have to be many thousands of them to reduce the impossibility down below the 10 to the minus 40 threshold Richard Dawkins concedes as being "impossible."
...

This is a give-away that the Pariah is of the Intelligent Design school. He's pretending to be conversant in arithmetic and chemistry so hasn't yet come to the "ten to the googol-plex; ergo God!" punchline.

You ignore the message and attack the messenger. The Fallacy of the Ad Hominem Attack.
What a pathetic response you had. Truly. I shan't bother reading anything else you post anywhere, ever.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Let's see how he is at arithmetic.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

On the Scary Graph we see CO2 increasing by 70 ppmv over a 50-year period.

96% of 70 ppmv is 67.2 ppmv. Is it your claim that the rise over the same period would have been 67 ppmv even WITHOUT mankind's fossil fuel usage?

Don't put words in my mouth as the Left is wont to do and then giggle.
It is science which states 96+% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Just think of the decomposing biomass all around the world and under the oceans. It is massive.

Citation please that 96+% of the increase in CO2 is from natural sources. If you are saying that “science” says that then surely you can point to the science that says that. Thanks.

Stop being so lazy. Look it up yourself. Anything I present, you will discredit, dispute, reject and condemn utterly. It is your LW Talking Point.

So you admit to not being here in good faith, yes? You made a quantitative, presumably demonstrable, claim but are unwilling to back it up? It’s a simple question that presumably has a simple answer. You are asserting my response before even letting me give it. You know nothing about me but assume many things. These are hallmarks of bad faith arguments. If you say the science is there then show me the science. If you can’t then you should respect my opinion to disbelieve claims that you can’t back up.

 

[steve_bank]

Astros sweep the Mariners, must be global warming. Is there anything you won’t blame on global warming? Probably not. You want it to be global warming because it’s a religion for you. You’re every bit as bad as flat earthers.

Grasping at straws in the wind. I expect you are feeling a bit of anxiey, that feeling you get in the gut that pushes you to make a weak knee jerk reaction post.

No chemistry lesson for me Steve Bank, after all your proclamations and pretensions?
Explain why everybody has been calling the "Periodic Table" by an incorrect name for almost 150 years. I'm sure you Leftists will come up with some cockamamey story.

Okey Dokey, You got me. The Periodic Table is a fraud.

If is raining and someone says it is not you can go outside and see.

We see the effects of climate chnage.

You are in a closed room and you turn on an electric heater. The temerture in the room goes up. Somebody in the room says no the temerture it is not going up and the heter is having no effect.

What would you say to that?

The heat from yur computer, light, and stove. Where fo you thnk it all goes? Keep in mind that the Earth is effectvely a closed room isolated by a vacuum. Where do you think all the heat and gasses generated by human industrialization goes? It shows up as a global temperature rise.

I emailed someone at the Univ Washington climate science group as to how much industrial power generation effected warming. He said about 2% of total global warming. Even without greenhouse gasses there would still be warming. Unless yiu wnat to dstpute conservation of energy, a cornerstone of science.

You protestations and arguments are weak.


Talk science instead of pseudo philosophical rambling babble.

We have seen the likes of you before on the forum. You may think you are on a profound quest, but it is Quixotic. Watch out for those deadly windmills.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, YOU miss the point, intentionally. 1.3 ppmv increase on a basis of 15,400 ppmv is insignificant, particularly when only 3% of that triv uial amount is anthropogenic. Refusing to look at evidence does not help your understanding or argument. Moreover, carbon dioxide LAGS temperature by hundreds of years, as explained by climate scientist in his book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years

Climate scientists all agree that the climate has always changed. Obviously the climate changes without any contribution from human industry, because there was no large scale human industrial activity before the 20th century, and no human industry at all before the last glaciation.

Climate scientists all agree that CO2 lags temperature, but not this time around. In the past, global warming and cooling were triggered by events other than a sudden increase in atmospheric CO2. For instance, volcano eruptions can cause warming by reducing the albedo of snow, and Milankovitch cycles cause the planet to warming and cool. In these situations CO2 will rise after warming has already started. This time around, however, the planet has a new source of atmospheric CO2, human industry, that never existed before, which means that atmospheric CO2 is now able to be the initial source to climate forcing.

That's all pretty obvious, though.

Singer, like some other "skeptics" such as Svensmark, argues that our present warming is caused by increases in solar irradiance. However, if solar irradiance was the dominant source of climate forcing, then we should have seen global temperatures drop as we go through each minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. Instead we have gone several decades without any global cooling. Singer grasps at straws by attributing the current warming to Bond cycles, but these cycles are relatively weak and can't possibly account for the magnitude of present warming.

That's the common theme with these deniers: they claim that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is dubious and then they marry themselves to these shoddy alternative theories. It is pretty obvious that climate "skepticism" has nothing to do with scientific standards and everything to do with politics.

In actuality, we are experiencing a decades long anomolous DROP in solar radiant.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

<p>In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.</p>

skepticalscience.com