Search results

Already done. It's a basic scientific principle . You are, otherwise you wouldn't be saying "show us peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming" when it is a part of that basic scientific principle. CO2 cools the upper atmosphere not the lower. Science does not show 'us'...

I very much do suggest you talk to CERN. The conCERNing thing about this misleading opinion piece is that the CERN study does not show cosmic rays are connected to global warming. How keen denialists are to pick up on fragments of information and twist them out of all proportion and context...

And why wouldn't they be trailing the last and leading the next:rolleyes:

More technically, dickhead is the name for scientists who don't believe there is scientific proof that man made co2 is causing warming as it is contrary to basic scientific principles. Skeptical is the name for scientists who don't believe there is enough scientific evidence to predict or...

Those are some good points. I'm not sure he posts in the kind of pattern a professional denier would need to for their 30 pieces of silver. Sad though, bigly.

Not sure FC. Thing is some of the stuff he comes out with is so way off base. It isn't just skepticism of certain scientific detail which is healthy, but more a denial of basic science and principles of chemistry. Perhaps it's just Truthiness. :) Sometimes people prefer facts they wish were...

Dude no offense, but you already demonstrated earlier in this thread how analogy is not a strong point of yours.

Of course it is exactly the way to look at the fossil fuel contribution. "Some individual molecules", amounting to 20% plus of all "individual molecules" introduced into the atmosphere by any form, are not completely removed by uptake from the oceans etc and remain in the air for hundreds...

False. In fact hundreds of years is an underestimate. The life time of around 20% of CO2 released into the atmosphere is measured over hundreds to almost a thousand years. False. More CO2 causes more warming as it spreads through more and more heat trapping absorption bands . Adding additional...

Not much point in linking vids like Don "Denier" Easterbrook's when the interweb is chock full of reasons why, how, and where his claims are factually incorrect and have been thoroughly debunked. He's a conspiracist. He claims everyone, including the whole of science is out of step, except him.

If you weren't trying to be such a smartass all the time, you'd know very well it is perfectly reasonable to associate half life with residence time and not just with atom disintegration in radioactive substances. Your (wrong) remark about CO2 half life having 5-10 (it is nearer to 30 years)...

You may have forgot about addressing the basic point already made. From the variability of cloud and no cloud, comes the variable positive and variable negative feedback effects. It is a single molecule of CO2 which has a half life around 5-10 years, not the effect of atmospheric CO2, which...

Can't help notice some irony in that you just posted it again. oops suppose I have too now. :sneaky:

Peace be with you is a core message erudite and complete, devoid of any need to clutter it with superfluous fictional characters. Like the pointless addition of an extraneous street sign, confusing and unnecessary for something already fully obvious and abundantly clear .

That is merely evidence of limestone caves, and mortar, and marble around 350 years after the time of supposed Bible Jesus. But then Myth pushers must grab at absolutely anything to call it evidence.

Ok,whatever. Deal with your bumble bee meets electric fan error first. If you want to believe the vast majority of thousands of independent scientists everywhere all over the world are either totally incompetent or have been conspiring to ignore or lie about clouds and convection to collude...

Turns out no such thing. Heat is trapped by high altitude clouds. How is that going to be a negative feedback? Clouds are highly variable. CO2 is constant and affects temperature comparatively quickly. CO2 in the atmosphere stays there. Clouds don't. CO2 dis-proportionally amplifies compared...

Good, so remember the science we have agreed "is accepted as true", and "no one questions it", not only states CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but by the same basic principles of physical chemistry, shows atmospheric CO2 will increase Earth's surface temperature through the radiative effects of CO2...

4 professors who didn't convince that Senate Committee because basically the Committee saw how the profs needed there to be a worldwide conspiracy throughout the scientific community for their interpretations and incorrect assumptions to have reason to be feasible. The Committee saw through it...

in short... we do actually have science to show CO2 is causing warming due what Arrehenuis discovered aboutCO2 in the 19th century. CO2 is CO2. Man made or not. in short...what we do not have is science showing man made CO2 will cause enough cooling for your negative feedback beliefs and your...