Climate Change... its the sun... again.

futurecurrents said:
The conversation on global warming has been stalled because a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it's mentioned.
Al Gore

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/al_gore.html#OOWwaXBPam5AU28h.99

Today we're dumping 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the environment, and tomorrow we will dump more, and there is no effective worldwide response. Until we start sharply reducing global-warming pollution, I will feel that I have failed.
Al Gore

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/al_gore.html#OOWwaXBPam5AU28h.99
More...
I provide quotes from scientist from the IPCC, American Physical Society and NASA.

You respond with Al Gore quotes, a politician's quotes.

Thank you for illustrating that your perspective is political and not scientific.

P5ZCR.gif
 
Last edited:
jem said:
1. first of all, upon putting a bit of thought into this... your chart must be quite stale.. because if the 11 year average was on recent data it would be flat or down...
so it is deceptive to use it and not disclaim that issue. cherry picked would be a nice word... misrepresentation is another. (that is unless 2014 data changes things... because I have only seen one chart which includes 2014.)

2. No... you know damn well I spoke about using the 11 year moving average of land - ocean temps.

which is a very long moving average when your baseline is the 35 years of solar decline and inside the data we see 19 years of flat land ocean temps and recent decline in land temps.

i
More...

Look at the chart then. The 11 year Moving Average after 2000 is flat and the data source includes 2014 if you'd cared to check!
You're suggesting a 100 year period chart is only valid if it contains 2014 data (which it does anyway).
Really?:rolleyes:

It's a long moving average over a long period of 100 years to date based on hard NASA data. You telling me you don't understand what moving average is?

Whereas your chart is a short period of 25 years using short 3 year periods overlay, with something being called a Low frequency index aSST3.4, and with that, there is still only an assertion being made that solar activity is a 'climate pacemaker'.

Comparing the two, it's quite evident what you've posted is the cherry picker.
 
achilles28 said:
Humans are responsible for roughly 3 percent of CO2 emissions. THREE PERCENT. The rest is decaying organic matter.

And somehow, the whole crux of global warming depends on humans cutting CO2 by one half of once percent. One half of one percent is the difference between the planet self destructing or being fine
More...


Yeah, the numbers dont make any sense, we are responsible for 3 percent of CO2 emissions and CO2 only makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, so even if we cut our emissions to zero, that would knock the 0.04% number down by 3%, So instead of being 0.04% it would then make up 0.0397% of the atmosphere, LOL

And that is if we disappear completely, these morons are on a mission to against a number that is infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
Max E. Pad said:
Yeah, the numbers dont make any sense, we are responsible for 3 percent of CO2 emissions and CO2 only makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, so even if we cut our emissions to zero, that would knock the 0.04% number down by 3%, So instead of being 0.04% it would then make up 0.0397% of the atmosphere, LOL

And that is if we disappear completely, these morons are on a mission to against a number that is infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things.
More...

Sadly, the climate alarmists can't do basic math.
 
Max E. Pad said:
Yeah, the numbers dont make any sense, we are responsible for 3 percent of CO2 emissions and CO2 only makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, so even if we cut our emissions to zero, that would knock the 0.04% number down by 3%, So instead of being 0.04% it would then make up 0.0397% of the atmosphere, LOL

And that is if we disappear completely, these morons are on a mission to against a number that is infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things.
More...


But those numbers are irrelevant, the key thing is that we have raised atmospheric levels by 40%. CO2 is responsible is for around half of earth's greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be around fifty degrees colder.

It's really very simple. A ten year old can understand it. But not a righty. Proving, once again that righties are dumber than ten year olds.

In fact the denial of AGW is one of the best proofs of just how stupid conservatives are.
 
futurecurrents said:
In fact the denial of AGW is one of the best proofs of just how stupid conservatives are.
More...

Not all of them. Look at the bunkers that the rich are building to wait it all out when the time comes and all the plebes die.

2012, man, 2012.
 
futurecurrents said:
But those numbers are irrelevant, the key thing is that we have raised atmospheric levels by 40%. CO2 is responsible is for around half of earth's greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be around fifty degrees colder.

It's really very simple. A ten year old can understand it. But not a righty. Proving, once again that righties are dumber than ten year olds.

In fact the denial of AGW is one of the best proofs of just how stupid conservatives are.
More...

According to futurecurrents - numbers and math is irrelevant.

u5B4vXd.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top