Global warming hoax fools millions

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Average for what? An ice-age? A dinosaur die-off? Does this mean we'll get "below average" death rates from increased storms/temperatures, ie, less than the Dinosaurs, but more than homo-erectus?

could you be more illogical.

yes we had ice ages and melts and ice ages.

We had a green greenland an icy greenland and now we may have a green greenland. (we are now starting to see viking settlements which were buried under glaciers) so did lief erickson cause the last round of warming?

If greenland is melting it could very well be inevitable and independent of mans emissions.

I know you understand the logic so I wonder why you are acting dumb?

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Ice cores show both, actually, depending on the period examined. And whether or not ice cores show warming before or after CO2 doesn't matter either -- since we know that CO2 absorbs heat and this is our CO2 that we've added. Other things do emit CO2, that doesn't mean that we get a free pass.

And a graph of energy absorption of CO2 molecules isn't "speculation," it's just the reality of how CO2 molecules work. As you can see from the graph, CO2 lets light through and absorbs heat. If you like you can research laser absorption spectroscopy and see how these graphs are made, but they're not up for debate, they're just facts.

by the way I know that trick ... but we can rehash it here.


You will eventually have to admit that warming precedes CO2 for the first 800 years and then after that we have no idea if CO2 precedes warming or not.

So here goes ---


Which core are your referencing. Please explain if it shows CO2 before warming? During what period of time in the warming trend?

Did that core go past the last ice age? Where did that core come from.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

could you be more illogical.

yes we had ice ages and melts and ice ages.

We had a green greenland an icy greenland and now we may have a green greenland. (we are now starting to see viking settlements which were buried under glaciers) so did lief erickson cause the last round of warming?

If greenland is melting it could very well be inevitable and independent of mans emissions.

I know you understand the logic so I wonder why you are acting dumb?

Okay, let's deconstruct your post:

1) "We're starting to see Viking settlements which were buried under glaciers." and rather than reach a possible conclusion that glaciers are melting rapidly due to global warming...

2) ...therefore a regional warm area near the sea indicates that GLOBAL warming cannot be important since there were other, possibly regional, causes in the past. Okeee.

Here it is with accidents:

People have died on-and-off in accidents for centuries, therefore we have little or no influence on car accidents.

Geese:

Canadian Geese have been found as far away as England in the past, therefore there is no way to know if they need to migrate.

Piles of crap:

Poo has always existed, sometimes even more so than now, so don't bother watching your step.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

by the way I know that trick ... but we can rehash it here.


You will eventually have to admit that warming precedes CO2 for the first 800 years and then after that we have no idea if CO2 precedes warming or not.

So here goes ---


Which core are your referencing. Please explain if it shows CO2 before warming? During what period of time in the warming trend?

Did that core go past the last ice age? Where did that core come from.

Actually you're the one referencing ice cores.

As for having "no idea if CO2 precedes warming or not" -- it is scientific fact that CO2 absorbs energy (and retransmits it in random directions) and therefore absolutely causes warming. It isn't up for debate. Too many people have studied CO2 molecules.

 

[DoneNDone]

Dead horse meet Global Warmists ...

I hope someone is keeping track of all these idiots and their idiocy ... I would hate to think the last 10 years I've spent berating them would come to nothing

btw, I'm all for 'clean energy' when it becomes economically feasible. MASSIVE TAXES won't hasten that end. It will just burn resources on 'unsustainable', nonviable 'alternative energy'. I haven't read a story about running your car on bacon fat recently, the hysteria must be calming down.

 

[DoneNDone]

EDIT: (less self-centered version...... "I" is to be avoided)


Dead horse meet Global Warmists ...

We should hope someone is keeping track of all these idiots and their idiocy ... Most would hate to think the last 10 years we've spent berating them would come to nothing

btw, Most are all for 'clean energy' when it becomes economically feasible. MASSIVE TAXES won't hasten that end. It will just burn resources on 'unsustainable', nonviable 'alternative energy'. There have been few stories about running your car on bacon fat recently, the hysteria must be calming down.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from DoneNDone:

EDIT: (less self-centered version...... "I" is to be avoided)


Dead horse meet Global Warmists ...

We should hope someone is keeping track of all these idiots and their idiocy ... Most would hate to think the last 10 years we've spent berating them would come to nothing

Not nothing, it's been very productive to advertise global warming and increase awareness. Countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s emissions have now committed to specific actions to reduce their global warming pollution.

 

[DoneNDone]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Not nothing, it's been very productive to advertise global warming and increase awareness. Countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s emissions have now committed to specific actions to reduce their global warming pollution.

there you have it........ Proof of insanity, or stupidity, not sure which is which

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from DoneNDone:

there you have it........ Proof of insanity, or stupidity, not sure which is which

Insanity? I would suggest that Exxon, the Republicans and the other global warming denier groups have done a favor overall to society. Without the utterly fake "controversy" the debate might have just stagnated (although it was also helpful when famous people championed the cause.)

Now, you could argue that without the "controversy" the same thing would have happened with CO2 as happened with sulfur dioxide emissions trading programs. With sulfur dioxide trading allowances and markets were set up to limit the output of these chemicals, and it's worked both invisibly and effectively. (These markets were signed into law by George H. W. Bush, by the way.) Nobody cared about them and there's been nothing but success.

However I would argue that CO2 emissions have greater cross-industry impact and therefore it's more difficult to introduce these standards. Initially the climate-change deniers gained the upper hand and confused large swaths of people -- many of whom still buy into it. Now, though, higher level politicians have rallied to the cause and are actively working on it. So overall, I'd say all the fake "controversy" has helped advance the cause considerably.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Actually you're the one referencing ice cores.

As for having "no idea if CO2 precedes warming or not" -- it is scientific fact that CO2 absorbs energy (and retransmits it in random directions) and therefore absolutely causes warming. It isn't up for debate. Too many people have studied CO2 molecules.

so first you tell me you have proof that CO2 precedes warming and now you tell me you don't.

You keep speculating that man is contributing to the accumulation -- but you have never shown that the accumulation causes the warming.