Search results

I'll tell you what it looks like to me: Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that there was a cooling period between 1940-80, and you disputed it. Now this graph shows that clear as day. Your credibility just got destroyed....... by you. This ability to disregard this fact when it goes...

1- what damage? Another .8C warming? That's less than the error range Dave. Do you know the significance of that? 2- IOW, you don't know why you threw that out there in the first place.... 3- yes, CO2 increases the retention of long wave radiation. That's not in dispute. But it's...

1- Dave's an idiot. CO2 effects are log, not linear. Even his beloved IPCC agrees to this. 2- yup. References to mass extinctions are again idiotic when all they do is enforce the correct view that these happened without our influence, and in fact had little to do with any global warming...

And again, that's based on a chart that used to show the MWP but no longer does.

Just a few questions. 1- do you agree that the IPCC "hockey stick" graph has been discredited? 2-If so, why do you continue to put your faith in them when it could only have been false to that degree due to lying? 3- do you agree that the Viking era was indeed hotter than today? 4-...

This whole post just affirms that both sides of the argument have their own agendas. So how about this - forget all that stuff and let the facts speak for itself. FACT - the IPCC identifies water vapor as THE major greenhouse gas. FACT - the IPCC does not go into the effects of water...

It's all politically driven. Republicans have terrorism as their "biggest enemy". Democrats have global warming. Stalin had perfect description for those that belive all the MMGW crap without any skepticism at all - useful idiots....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5541587027584542167 It's all covered there, and why you should be skeptical.

1- yes, but how do you know that it's an accurate comparison? I've seen air flask measurements from the 1800's that show CO2 at 550ppm. Which means that the method of collecting the data set and constructing the graph to be wrong and invalid. 2- temp recording began when? Just as we were...

I already know your views about GW. It's just that your post didn't make much sense, and here's why- 1a- you're aware of the failings of the GW crowd, and as you put it, their bending to PC views. GW is a pet theory of the far left. 1b- so then the left doesn't heed scientific evidence...

Why do you think that? There are 6 Nobel Laureate scientists that disagree with the whole global warming hypothesis. Or do you think that Universities are above bending to political winds? Are you that naive?

So where's the causation then? If CO2 causes warming, why is it not the warmest on record today? It's been going on for 150 yrs. As another poster on your side of the srgument pointed out, CO2 absorbs long wave IR reflection from the earth. There shouldn't be a lag. How do you know that...

How was the 386 measurement taken? Air measurements? And how was the past CO2 levels determined? Ice core? How do you know that they correlate? If the present CO2 levels are higher than ever before, then why aren't temps ALSO the highest they've ever been, if CO2 is the "major factor"...

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic..... If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1...

This is from someone that appears to be on your side of the argument. http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/ By mass and volume, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. According to both the International Panel on Climate Change and many global climate models, water...

Quick, where's the forum for stupidest post of the month? Cuz we have a winnah!!

+1

Congress actually spends the money, not the Pres. And like another poster said, if you're a Paul backer, then there's no way you could back Obama. Paul is more concerned about domestic issues and the economy, and Obama's statements were absolutely 180 degrees off what anything that Paul has...

Ah, ok then. You put foreign policy/abortion issues ahead of domestic/economy issues then, correct?

But Obama also said he wanted to bomb bomb bomb Pakistan, and he's done that. Bewildering. What is your stance then in involving our military in foreign countries? Is it consistent? McCain at least said he was against big guv - which I'm guessing you're in favor of? How is this less...