Jump to content

Let's Debate Climate Change with the New Guy Paul


Recommended Posts

There has been a pile of evidence to the contrary Paul.



I hope your not one of those that believed the 97% consensus? It's was debunk long ago.



Al Gore's top climatologist claimed we were headed for another ice age...then he joined Gore's payroll and switched position.



You are aware of the data manipulation with East Anglia University and many other entities over the years...right?



Here's Stephen Scheinder (now deceased), he flipped and became Gore's Climatologist...



Was he right then about a coming ice age, or was he right when he flipped his position.



Paul...please offer us your assessment of this short video...





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace left Greenpeace because they started politicizing their science.

 

He now disagrees with man made global warming...computer model are easily manipulated to fit a desired template.

 

 

 

From 2013...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There has been a pile of evidence to the contrary Paul.

I hope your not one of those that believed the 97% consensus? It's was debunk long ago.

Al Gore's top climatologist claimed we were headed for another ice age...then he joined Gore's payroll and switched position.

You are aware of the data manipulation with East Anglia University and many other entities over the years...right?

Here's Stephen Scheinder (now deceased), he flipped and became Gore's Climatologist...

Was he right then about a coming ice age, or was he right when he flipped his position.

Paul...please offer us your assessment of this short video...

 

I hope you're not cherry picking Paul...we really should have this debate.

 

Don't worry about the jabs...members here will jab both of us.

 

I will protect you. :)

 

In the interest of reasonable online debate let's try and avoid posting encyclopedias of information.

 

There's plenty we can discuss without overloading our posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three Facts Prove Climate Alarm Is a Scam

(Dimitry Rukhlenko / Dreamstime)

By Larry Bell

Tuesday, 31 May 2016 10:16 AM More Posts by Larry Bell

1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

 

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

 

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

 

1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2

 

First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.

 

During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.

 

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

 

Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

 

2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong

 

Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”

 

Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)

 

As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.

Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

 

3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities

 

So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.

As written in a 2007 journal Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

 

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

 

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

 

Or as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

 

No, none of this global warming (aka, “climate change”) alarmism is based upon objective science. It never was.

 

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom”(2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012). Read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three Facts Prove Climate Alarm Is a Scam

(Dimitry Rukhlenko / Dreamstime)

By Larry Bell

Tuesday, 31 May 2016 10:16 AM More Posts by Larry Bell

1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

 

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

 

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

 

1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2

 

First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.

 

During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.

 

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

 

Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

 

2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong

 

Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”

 

Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)

 

As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.

Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

 

3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities

 

So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.

As written in a 2007 journal Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

 

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

 

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

 

Or as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

 

No, none of this global warming (aka, “climate change”) alarmism is based upon objective science. It never was.

 

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom”(2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012). Read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

 

Thanx 123...I would also add that ALL of Gore's climate predictions failed to come true.

 

That one is easy to prove if anyone wants it proven.

 

P.S. Why is Gore so absent from the media given all his alarmist positions a few years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There has been a pile of evidence to the contrary Paul.

I hope your not one of those that believed the 97% consensus? It's was debunk long ago.

Al Gore's top climatologist claimed we were headed for another ice age...then he joined Gore's payroll and switched position.

You are aware of the data manipulation with East Anglia University and many other entities over the years...right?

Here's Stephen Scheinder (now deceased), he flipped and became Gore's Climatologist...

Was he right then about a coming ice age, or was he right when he flipped his position.

Paul...please offer us your assessment of this short video...

 

So far...no Paul.

 

I'll call it a night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx 123...I would also add that ALL of Gore's climate predictions failed to come true.

 

That one is easy to prove if anyone wants it proven.

 

P.S. Why is Gore so absent from the media given all his alarmist positions a few years ago?

 

Gore was snowed in for a few weeks.

 

He always has that happen about the time he is due for another of his Prophesies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Gore was snowed in for a few weeks.

 

He always has that happen about the time he is due for another of his Prophesies.

I expect that from Gore...but I thought Paul seemed pretty ready to discuss climate change.

 

Maybe we'll see him tomorrow.

 

If he doesn't show up then we have our answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing

It goes from the coming ice age

To global warming

To climate change

What's interesting is that any doomsday claim made is eventually blamed on overpopulation

This is, IMHO, a front for eugenics and depopulation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect that from Gore...but I thought Paul seemed pretty ready to discuss climate change.

 

Maybe we'll see him tomorrow.

 

If he doesn't show up then we have our answer.

 

I'm still waiting on these liberrhoids to explain how the VIOLATION of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is possible in "global warming" theory.

 

Until they can do that, they have ZERO argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm still waiting on these liberrhoids to explain how the VIOLATION of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is possible in "global warming" theory.

 

Until they can do that, they have ZERO argument.

 

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, frictional heating caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet and heat from the decay of radioactive elements, which makes all the difference.

 

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, frictional heating caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet and heat from the decay of radioactive elements, which makes all the difference.

 

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

No Sun: Within a week, the average global surface temperature would drop below 0°F. In a year, it would dip to –100°.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, frictional heating caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet and heat from the decay of radioactive elements, which makes all the difference.

 

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

Global warming is on the same level as Hussein care, its all about redistribution of wealth. I asked you earlier about this and you ignored it. Have you seen what they intend to do, the cost of what they want to do, and the basically zero effect of said proposals are going to have?

 

 

So even if your claims of "climate change" are true (and they arent) and the proposals are not going to accomplish a damn thing...except bankrupt companies, and wreck economies...why are you a proponent of it? the only reason you could be for it in this true and only scenario would be that you are a globalist and you could care less about my children and grand children's future. Hence i dont like you...at all !

 

Next you are going to try to tell me that Israel is bad, iran wont get nukes, The muslim brotherhood doesnt exist, tax and spend is brilliant, reducing taxes is bad, solar is great,electric cars are the way to go, hillary is a saint,we dont need borders, Liberals havent placed minorities in areas of the us to sway the vote, men calling themselves woman can use the bathroom while my daughter is in it,god isnt real, Democrats arent the racist ones,black lives matter is noble....bla blablablabla...Americans are sick and tired of your nonsense...Hussein's policies have gotten innocent men and woman tortured and killed for no other reason than a political agenda and control of power, and I for one am not going to stand idle and watch you fools ruin my country. You libretards think this is all a big game.its not a game at all, lives are being destroyed because of liberal ignorance.

 

I was alive and saw how stupid carter was...I also saw how the country was the most awesome place on the earth when Reagan was president...I watched that moron slick willie disgrace the office and this country, i watched you morons destroy bush for political agenda and now i have witnessed the biggest disaster in human history in this fool Hussein obama .

 

 

There is no way in hell you are going to pull the wool over my eyes and I am sick and tired of trying to teach you morons the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul.. I went for one of the most interesting of interviews of my career today

 

The first question was "Do you believe in global warming?"

 

My answer: Yes there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. We can expect temperaures ans sea levels to rise. We broke 400 PPM CO2 after 800,000 years at 300 PPM in direct response to the Industrial revolution

 

But I agreed Skeptics have valid points of fact too

The same conditions exist between 1920 and 1940 and it has not been defined as man made global man.

 

CO2 levels have been much higher during previous ice ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, frictional heating caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet and heat from the decay of radioactive elements, which makes all the difference.

 

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

 

Your description is STILL validation of the 2nd Law.

 

Here is why.

 

You BODY is the heat source, not anything else. What the blanket does is SLOW DOWN the process of "heat moving to cold". However, if you REMOVE any external forces that COULD cause the blanket to warm, your body heat eventually will continue to drop as the energy SOURCE needed to produce that heat isn't being replenished if NO food source is being consumed. Even the extremities WILL shut down, even in a blanket, to preserve the heat energy to the core of the body. The simple fact is, the BLANKET is cooler than the heat source BUT acts as a "restriction" to heat moving to cold. IT IS NOT A GENERATOR OF HEAT NOR AN ENERGY SOURCE.

 

Think I am wrong?? Go wrap yourself in a blanket and sit in a freezer for a few days. See if you freeze to death. Do the same thing WITHOUT the blanket and you freeze to death faster. The fact is, the HEAT still moved to cold, however the blanket ONLY slowed down the movement.

 

COLD can NEVER move to heat without WORK being done to cause it. And it takes a LOT of work to make that happen and not even RADIATIVE ENERGY can do that. EVER since there is NOT enough "work" that it can produce. The atmosphere of the earth is incapable of doing ANYTHING but to follow the 2nd Law. HEAT radiates TO space- the colder of the two mediums- ALWAYS. The "blanket' of our atmosphere ONLY slows the progression, but is INCAPABLE OF "Back radiating" anything. Why? Because the SURFACE of the earth is ALWAYS warmer than the air surrounding it. The heat, basically, RISES to space, restricted ONLY by the atmosphere, and NO "back radiation" is ever possible. EVER.

 

Pssst. Paul. You are arguing with a Physicist here. You can't win. No matter the scenario you throw at me, I CAN AND WILL prove why the 2nd Law ALWAYS applies and WHY this bullshit of "CO2 Causes global warming" THEORY is flawed from the start with it's "back radiation" BULLSHIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, frictional heating caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet and heat from the decay of radioactive elements, which makes all the difference.

 

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

That's it? Please provide us with what you believe to be evidence.

 

 

May I start here with 2 questions...

 

#1 Are you aware that among others, East Anglia University was caught manipulating climate data by omitting certain measuring stations that didn't fit into the climate model? And they joked about.

 

 

 

#2 Do you actually believe the 97% consensus?

 

Did you know that the so called 97% consensus actually includes skeptical scientists? Isn't it odd that scientists that are skeptical about the climate claims would actually be part of the 97%.

 

Some scientists wanted their names removed from the 97% consensus because papers that they wrote had nothing to do with climate and they were not on board with the consensus. Kind of a strange way to compile a consensus don't you think Paul?

 

Here's some science for you...A professor suggested that the RICO law should be used to prosecute skeptical scientists. Really?

 

Paul...you say you have tried to present people with facts but they just refuse to accept what you're saying.

 

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...Paul decided not to comment on any of my presentation of Stephen Schneider who first claimed a new ice age was coming, then he did a 180 in favor of AGW. Just how wrong can a scientist be to do a complete 180 from ice age to AGW?

 

The 97% so called consensus is highly misleading. Consensus on what exactly. Many of these scientists that have been included in this consensus say the threat of CO2 has been way over stated and exaggerated.

 

How about the exaggerations that Al Gore predicted to happen by a certain time...that time has well since passed and none of Gore's predictions came true.

 

The AGW crowd can't just keep making the same claims without explaining why their claims failed to materialize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your description is STILL validation of the 2nd Law.

 

Here is why.

 

You BODY is the heat source, not anything else. What the blanket does is SLOW DOWN the process of "heat moving to cold". However, if you REMOVE any external forces that COULD cause the blanket to warm, your body heat eventually will continue to drop as the energy SOURCE needed to produce that heat isn't being replenished if NO food source is being consumed. Even the extremities WILL shut down, even in a blanket, to preserve the heat energy to the core of the body. The simple fact is, the BLANKET is cooler than the heat source BUT acts as a "restriction" to heat moving to cold. IT IS NOT A GENERATOR OF HEAT NOR AN ENERGY SOURCE.

 

Think I am wrong?? Go wrap yourself in a blanket and sit in a freezer for a few days. See if you freeze to death. Do the same thing WITHOUT the blanket and you freeze to death faster. The fact is, the HEAT still moved to cold, however the blanket ONLY slowed down the movement.

 

COLD can NEVER move to heat without WORK being done to cause it. And it takes a LOT of work to make that happen and not even RADIATIVE ENERGY can do that. EVER since there is NOT enough "work" that it can produce. The atmosphere of the earth is incapable of doing ANYTHING but to follow the 2nd Law. HEAT radiates TO space- the colder of the two mediums- ALWAYS. The "blanket' of our atmosphere ONLY slows the progression, but is INCAPABLE OF "Back radiating" anything. Why? Because the SURFACE of the earth is ALWAYS warmer than the air surrounding it. The heat, basically, RISES to space, restricted ONLY by the atmosphere, and NO "back radiation" is ever possible. EVER.

 

Pssst. Paul. You are arguing with a Physicist here. You can't win. No matter the scenario you throw at me, I CAN AND WILL prove why the 2nd Law ALWAYS applies and WHY this bullshit of "CO2 Causes global warming" THEORY is flawed from the start with it's "back radiation" BULLSHIT.

They shifted from "man made global warming" to "AGW" cause climate does change, so it is technically a true label. There's only one reason they would stop using "man made global warming"...cause it has not been proven and therefore can not be defined as a true statement.

 

Good news Max...on this thread, 100% of physicists agree. If someone tries to prosecute you with the RICO law for being a skeptic we will start a GoFundMe legal fund on your behalf. ;)

 

It's very easy to claim consensus on anything...especially with the tactics that were used to create the 97% consensus claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul.. I went for one of the most interesting of interviews of my career today

 

The first question was "Do you believe in global warming?"

 

My answer: Yes there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. We can expect temperaures ans sea levels to rise. We broke 400 PPM CO2 after 800,000 years at 300 PPM in direct response to the Industrial revolution

 

But I agreed Skeptics have valid points of fact too

Let's see how the 97% consensus was achieved...this is one of many explanations. It's simple and to the point.

 

Notice how the media and the AGW crowd has never offered a full scale breakdown of exactly how they arrived at the 97% claim...if they did, the 97% claim would crumble. If some believe in AGW, that's fine. But believing and basing that belief on real evidence are entirely two different things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most importantl fact: only morons believe in global warming

More importantly...marketing is effective. We all know it.

 

The 97% claim is marketing...they never break down the so called 97% claim and show us exactly what scientists claimed or implied.

 

AGW has been heavily marketed. How many times do we see skeptics in these marketing discussions...VERY SELDOM.

 

The media and the AGW politicians are a broken record...most of the time, if we do hear mention of skeptics, it's in a negative context. "deniers"

 

Occasionally skeptics do make it onto TV...I deliberately chose CNN because using another source like Fox, etc. would have been the focus of my critics and not the content of this segment...

 

Here is the founder of The Weather Channel...(notice the use of the word "deniers"). It's part of the marketing I mentioned.

 

At the end, the current CEO of The Weather Channel makes his statements and one of his statements is false...he says the science on climate change is clear...no it is not clear. Any reasonable person can believe what they want but would still say the conclusion of climate change has not been proven to be resolved and definitive.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kT3GagR0g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT ONE scientific journal has published any article that discredits or refutes the conclusion that global climate change is occurring. CNN is not an authority on anything scientific. At best they rent a scientist for a 15 minute interview.

 

The anti climate change movement is financed by Big Coal, Big Oil and others who want to sell their fuels before they are replaced by cheaper alternatives. Idiots follow them because they are idiots.

 

If we wreck this planet, we won't be getting another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT ONE scientific journal has published any article that discredits or refutes the conclusion that global climate change is occurring. CNN is not an authority on anything scientific. At best they rent a scientist for a 15 minute interview.

 

The anti climate change movement is financed by Big Coal, Big Oil and others who want to sell their fuels before they are replaced by cheaper alternatives. Idiots follow them because they are idiots.

 

If we wreck this planet, we won't be getting another one.

No supporting evidence on your part...only rhetoric.

 

There is plenty of evidence that shows how data was manipulated to fit the AGW narrative.

 

X...why did all of Al Gore's predictions not come true...can you explain that? Or would you rather not?

 

 

 

"A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz4V5Ejoo7S

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT ONE scientific journal has published any article that discredits or refutes the conclusion that global climate change is occurring. CNN is not an authority on anything scientific. At best they rent a scientist for a 15 minute interview.

 

The anti climate change movement is financed by Big Coal, Big Oil and others who want to sell their fuels before they are replaced by cheaper alternatives. Idiots follow them because they are idiots.

 

If we wreck this planet, we won't be getting another one.

It's been changing since day one and will continue to do so no matter what. Fuck your scam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X...why did all of Al Gore's predictions not come true...can you explain that? Or would you rather not?

 

Again, Al Gore is not actually a scientist, but much of what he claims is in fact supported by scientific journals and not a one of them had refuted Global warming in any way.

You can badmouth Al Gore all you wish, but that will not change the actual facts, which are against the deniers.

 

The scientific proof is available to anyone that chooses to read it. It is too extensive for me to copy here, and you would not read it anyway. Convincing you is a waste of time,and your opinion is worthless. Utterly worthless.

 

The science is against the deniers. If there were a shred of truth to what they say, it would get published, because that is what real scientists do. You are simply another fool who chooses to believe Big Oil and Big Coal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT ONE scientific journal has published any article that discredits or refutes the conclusion that global climate change is occurring. CNN is not an authority on anything scientific. At best they rent a scientist for a 15 minute interview.

 

The anti climate change movement is financed by Big Coal, Big Oil and others who want to sell their fuels before they are replaced by cheaper alternatives. Idiots follow them because they are idiots.

 

If we wreck this planet, we won't be getting another one.

 

Now now, what a fucking MORON you expose yourself to be.

 

When the ONLY ONES who "vet" opposing views are those who are "believers", you are probably NOT going to get your paper published.

 

And THAT FACT can be proven beyond ANY shadow of a doubt.

 

Remember when Einstein wrote hie Theory of Relativity?? HIS paper was REJECTED MULTIPLE TIMES as being "against the consensus". NO "reputable" journal would touch it or publish it since the control of those papers were by the "anti-believers" in his theory. Yet, he persisted and said "I can show you HOW you can prove it one way of the other". THAT got their attention since was going to be "easy to prove this kook wrong". So in 1919 the total eclipse of the sun PROVED that Einstein was not only right, but that his mathematical calculations were 100% dead right. AND Einstein even said, "if they are NOT 100% right, then my theory is false".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...