A question for the AGW deniers

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

stop right there.. you are irrational but you don't seem to be capable of understanding that. "CO2 has gone up because of fossil fuels"? That is an assumption on your part, not a foregone conclusion like the way you state it. "We know that CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas".. we know that because we have a pair of earths and we experimented with their atmospheres?

What you have is a lot of conjecture and stuff based on computer models.. computer models of an entire planet no less!! How about you show us a computer model of the markets? Our markets are a lot less complex than the earth and it's atmosphere and all the life on it but not too many models seem to exist, if they did we would all be using them to trade! How about a model that predicts the weather, very accurately, and years in advance, why don't you produce something like that before you run around with all this drivel of yours.

You have a lot of conjecture with the trappings of science and nothing more than that. Once you understand that, you might be able to get on with being rational. They used to teach critical thinking in the public schools but that was phased out, along with memorization of facts and phonics.. Take a philosophy 101 course and learn about assumptions, logic, fallacious arguments.. You're a joke.

You also must be stupid, insane or both. Have you not read the evidence and unassailable science that proves the extra CO2 is from man? I posted it above. It is certainly NOT an assumption and by calling it that you prove that you are simply ignorant. Just looking at the charts of CO2 over the last thousand years one can see the jump at around the year 1850. Are you trying to say that was coincidence?

If you taught critical thinking then you should know that deductive reasoning is very important part of it. Unfortunately I see little evidence of that in the knee-jerk, ideologically deluded deniers here.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Wow you're stupid, or insane, or both. Did you not read all the evidence that I presented that proves the extra CO2 is from man?

lets say you have tub with blue water. (co2 -12)
then you throw in a tub full of green water (co2 -13)
a lot of the water goes over the edge.

would you not expect to see some blue water and some green water still in the tub?

lets continue.

In the past the tub got larger or smaller based on the rooms temperature and the tub cycled in size many times.


So now a big mouth fool comes along and says the green water made the tub bigger.


Would you consider that person a moron?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

lets say you have tub with blue water. (co2 -12)
then you throw in a tub full of green water (co2 -13)
a lot of the water goes over the edge.

would you not expect to see some blue water and some green water still in the tub?

lets continue.

In the past the tub got larger or smaller based on the rooms temperature and the tub cycled in size many times.


So now a big mouth fool comes along and says the green water made the tub bigger.


Would you consider that person a moron?

What the fuck are you talking about? It's simple and positively proved science that the extra CO2 is from man ! That's all you need to know. Look it up. I think you need to soak your head in that tub. You are truly absurd.

Given that CO2 has gone up about 35% over the last 150 years from the burning of fossil fuels and we know CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas, how could it be that temps should NOT go up?

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

What the fuck are you talking about? It's simple and positively proved science that the extra CO2 is from man ! That's all you need to know. Look it up. I think you need to soak your head in that tub. You are truly absurd.

Given that CO2 has gone up about 35% over the last 150 years from the burning of fossil fuels and we know CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas, how could it be that temps should NOT go up?

I have been telling you, you need to understand cause and effect. Its a basic scientific principle. You just proved science is over your head.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You're lecturing me about science? That's funny.

Not really, you install heat and air units for a living.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

I have been telling you, you need to understand cause and effect. Its a basic scientific principle. You just proved science is over your head.

And you keep proving you're insane and that basic logic is over your head.

Again. What the fuck are you talking about. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. Scientists can tell the extra CO2 is from man. Do you presume to know more than the climate scientists? I'll say it again. There is no question where the extra CO2 is from. It's from man. To not know that at this point mean you simply being ignorant and irrational.

Given that CO2 has gone up about 35% over the last 150 years from the burning of fossil fuels and we know CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas, how could it be that temps should NOT go up?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

....Given that CO2 has gone up about 35% over the last 150 years from the burning of fossil fuels and we know CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas, how could it be that temps should NOT go up?

40% of the electricity generated in this country is produced by burning coal.

Turn off your lights and your computer or just STFU.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Lucrum:

40% of the electricity generated in this country is produced by burning coal.

Turn off your lights and your computer or just STFU.

Yes please just STFU. You're the biggest moron here.

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You also must be stupid, insane or both. Have you not read the evidence and unassailable science that proves the extra CO2 is from man? I posted it above. It is certainly NOT an assumption and by calling it that you prove that you are simply ignorant. Just looking at the charts of CO2 over the last thousand years one can see the jump at around the year 1850. Are you trying to say that was coincidence?

If you taught critical thinking then you should know that deductive reasoning is very important part of it. Unfortunately I see little evidence of that in the knee-jerk, ideologically deluded deniers here.

I noticed that when somebody published an article that involved tree ring analysis you really went nuts.. tree ring data can't be altered with assumptions about how long it takes to make a ring.. all the other stuff is very muchly based on assumptions that are not, and cannot be proven..

Black widows are sort of funny, their brains sense what they are stepping in by the transfer of the materials directly into their brain.. so it's bad for them when they get sprayed with poison. They start wiggling and kicking like mad. I think that something like that happens when you see tree ring based data, no?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

I noticed that when somebody published an article that involved tree ring analysis you really went nuts.. tree ring data can't be altered with assumptions about how long it takes to make a ring.. all the other stuff is very muchly based on assumptions that are not, and cannot be proven..

Black widows are sort of funny, their brains sense what they are stepping in by the transfer of the materials directly into their brain.. so it's bad for them when they get sprayed with poison. They start wiggling and kicking like mad. I think that something like that happens when you see tree ring based data, no?

WTF are you talking about? We talked about this. Tree rings are fine in context with other tree ring data from other areas and other proxies like ice cores. They are certainly not necessary to see the temps over the last two hundred years. One set of tree ring data from one area is fairly useless by itself. There is certainly no more assumptions involved with ice cores than with tree rings. And none at all using all the thermometer and satellite readings.