Global warming hoax fools millions

[377OHMS]

Quote from DoneNDone:

what douche-bags you people are

ET is an eye-opener isn't it?

Between the climate nuts, the vaccine nuts, the 9/11 nuts and the birther nuts and the propensity for mods to push these folks towards P&R you have a disproportionate number of them running around posting stupid stuff here.

They aren't subject to reason or debate. They live in certaintude of their views and can't understand why the rest of us go on leading normal lives. Some of them begin to see conspiracies *everywhere*.

I'm noticing these conspiracy loons seem quick to adopt anti-semitic views too.

Its sad. Probably alot of divorces and estrangement from children and relatives etc.

 

[DoneNDone]

Quote from 377OHMS:

ET is an eye-opener isn't it?

Between the climate nuts, the vaccine nuts, the 9/11 nuts and the birther nuts and the propensity for mods to push these folks towards P&R you have a disproportionate number of them running around posting stupid stuff here.

They aren't subject to reason or debate. They live in certaintude of their views and can't understand why the rest of us go on leading normal lives. Some of them begin to see conspiracies *everywhere*.

I'm noticing these conspiracy loons seem quick to adopt anti-semitic views too.

Its sad. Probably alot of divorces and estrangement from children and relatives etc.

all in good fun

ive been around this site for years

 

[Eight]

CO2 is good for plants, plants are good for the earth... more plants means more food, more food means more people can live here, more people means bigger party!! Where's the problem in that?

 

[DoneNDone]

Quote from Eight:

CO2 is good for plants, plants are good for the earth... more plants means more food, more food means more people can live here, more people means bigger party!! Where's the problem in that?

I'd suggest you take it up with the EPA, apparently they believe CO2 to be a toxic pollutant. (I'd wager, most at the EPA are repeat viewers of Gore's stupidity)


Our only hope is to tax Carbon, the building block of life, according to the parade of AGW imbeciles

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from DoneNDone:

LOL..

if i had any motive, i'd drum up some quotes from your fellow climatologists.


As I don't, (have any motive that is, other then to stop your insane idiocy), I d find it more rewarding to argue with a 4 year old.... children are so honest

OK, to be a good sport, I'll refer you back to the OP's original post........
Have you Drowned Yet!

what douche-bags you people are

I notice that you're very angry.

Here's a graph of the temperature data straight from NASA, I know it's not as interesting as quotes from anonymous climatologists, but here it is. Perhaps you can argue with it and tell the lines that they're wrong:

<img src="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2010vs2005+1998.gif">

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from 377OHMS:

I'm noticing these conspiracy loons seem quick to adopt anti-semitic views too.

Its sad. Probably alot of divorces and estrangement from children and relatives etc.

It's true. The temperature graphs made me want to get a divorce.

 

[jem]

you keep talking about accumulation of CO2 like some kind of climatroll.

don't you get what I just posted for you.

It says warming precedes accumulation for the first 800 years of a warming cycle... and after that we have no idea what causes the warming.

So we have no proof CO2 accumulation causes warming.

Who knows perhaps it does.

But, maybe all those copies of the new york times being thrown in the garbage causes global warming.

Quote from jem:

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

That is a pro global warming site.

Until we see further evidence, neither you, scientists, Gore, nor and I have any proof that man is causing global warming.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

you keep talking about accumulation of CO2 like some kind of climatroll.

don't you get what I just posted for you.

It says warming precedes accumulation for the first 800 years of a warming cycle... and after that we have no idea what causes the warming.

So we have no proof CO2 accumulation causes warming.

Who knows perhaps it does.

But, maybe all those copies of the new york times being thrown in the garbage causes global warming.

Yeah, there isn't any debating the energy absorption graph of CO2. It doesn't matter if you have a graph from 800 years ago showing warming, cooling, or the same. Or 5000 years ago. Or ten million years ago. Unless you have some way of overturning the actual graph of energy absorption of CO2 then there is no denying that CO2 accumulation causes warming.

No rational way of denying it, anyway.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yeah, there isn't any debating the energy absorption graph of CO2. It doesn't matter if you have a graph from 800 years ago showing warming, cooling, or the same. Or 5000 years ago. Or ten million years ago. Unless you have some way of overturning the actual graph of energy absorption of CO2 then there is no denying that CO2 accumulation causes warming.

No rational way of denying it, anyway.

Nice evasion...

All you keep saying is that CO2 absorbs energy. I will grant you this for this discussion. So what..... if we were cooling perhaps the oceans would absorb CO2 or the earth would find another way to shed C02 as it has done in the past during cooling cycles.

I am surprised you do not even try to show CO2 precedes warming.
Do you have absolutely no sane argument. Or are you aware that even in the cooling cycles it has been shown that CO2 has no correlation to the temperature?


Science has proof -- that historically we have cycles which show warming precedes CO2 buildup.

Therefore we can be in a cycle where we are coming of a cold low and destined to accumulate CO2.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

Nice evasion...

All you keep saying is that CO2 absorbs energy. I will grant you this for this discussion. So what..... if we were cooling perhaps the oceans would absorb CO2 or the earth would find another way to shed C02 as it has done in the past during cooling cycles.

I am surprised you do not even try to show CO2 precedes warming.
Do you have absolutely no sane argument. Or are you aware that even in the cooling cycles it has been shown that CO2 has no correlation to the temperature?


Science has proof -- that historically we have cycles which show warming precedes CO2 buildup.

Therefore we can be in a cycle where we are coming of a cold low and destined to accumulate CO2.

If you concede that CO2 absorbs energy, and you have, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases temperature, simple as that.

If your theory that we are coming out of a cold low (false) and are "destined" to accumulate CO2 (entirely made up) was true then we are in trouble due to increasing temperatures and we should reduce the consequences of that trend by reducing CO2 emissions.