It absolutely IS the dominant greenhouse gas. I would ask you to get a clue but that is asking too much.
It Feels Like The Start Of A Mini Ice Age
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
It absolutely IS the dominant greenhouse gas. I would ask you to get a clue but that is asking too much.
No. I view "climate science" through a political peephole since it is the climate scientists, aka political hacks, that politicised it in the first place. I view their findings with as much skepticism as any other government agency, which pretty much means most everything is overly inflated, or severely diminished as to suit their predetermined needs.
================Quote from RCG Trader:
The sun IS god, in many ways.
Amen RC Trader;
most spell his position''son'' [ IS GOD] Good God that a good quote.LOL
Really. The world's scientists are all political hacks. That's fucking ridiculous.
1. you are now officially a complete liar.
show us your data that says virtually all scientists agree that man made CO2 is causing warming.
I do not think any of the recent studies have any scientist saying that.
you are a liar who misrepresents the state of science.
2. no when temperatures go up... CO2 is accumulated.... that is what the earth history shows us. you got it all backwards.
3. you are ass backwards on the history.
over the last 16 years no warming.
over the past 400,000 we are cycle in the normal range.
you are trying to cherry pick a few hundred years.
show us your data that says virtually all scientists agree that man made CO2 is causing warming.
I do not think any of the recent studies have any scientist saying that.
you are a liar who misrepresents the state of science.
2. no when temperatures go up... CO2 is accumulated.... that is what the earth history shows us. you got it all backwards.
3. you are ass backwards on the history.
over the last 16 years no warming.
over the past 400,000 we are cycle in the normal range.
you are trying to cherry pick a few hundred years.
I am not a liar. How dare you! You're an idiot. Try the 10 year time period or the 12 or the eight or the 30. Really, how could you be that stupid as to cite that 16 year bullshit again. Show me on a two hundred year chart where the warming has stopped. Post a chart and shut up. Do some reading about GW. But stop your bullshit.
I've already shown you all this stuff and you choose to ignore it. You are intentionally ignorant and obstinately stupid. That's worse than being just plain stupid. Charts, logic, the science ,the experts, you ignore them all. Amazing.
Post a chart showing where the warming stopped. Show evidence that more than 5% of climate scientists disagree that man made greenhouse gasses are largely responsible for the accelerating warming. Show me where CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Show me where CO2 is not the dominant of these greenhouse gasses to which they refer. Until then shut the fuck up moron. I mean that with all due respect. That is, none.
Another looney rant.Quote from futurecurrents:
...Show me where CO2 is not the dominant of these greenhouse gasses...
-------
It's water vapor by a mile, dumbass. Look it up.
Does anyone reading this thread believe futurecurrents' position on AGW with or without his absence of sources? (Anyone besides IQ-47, that is.)
...Show me where CO2 is not the dominant of these greenhouse gasses...
-------
It's water vapor by a mile, dumbass. Look it up.
Does anyone reading this thread believe futurecurrents' position on AGW with or without his absence of sources? (Anyone besides IQ-47, that is.)
You denier morons may want to ignore this.....
"...the vast majority of the worldâs active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.
For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.
The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view. The skeptics are also less influential, as judged by how often their scientific papers are cited in the work of other climate scientists.
âWe show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidenceâ of human-induced climate change âvastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,â Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/
"...the vast majority of the worldâs active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.
For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.
The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view. The skeptics are also less influential, as judged by how often their scientific papers are cited in the work of other climate scientists.
âWe show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidenceâ of human-induced climate change âvastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,â Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/
I meant of the man-made greenhouse gasses. I suppose I misspoke. But you're right, water vapor is the dominant of the natural greenhouse gasses. And it accelerates warming from CO2 by a positive feedback mechanism. So as we add CO2 the temperature warms which adds more water vapor etc.