Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from futurecurrents:

I know why GWB "thinks" the way he does....


fox_denial_chart.png
More...

I rarely if ever watch FOX news or any other news channel (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) that consists of talking pundits with little brain power.

I review the scientific facts and think for myself.

Maybe you should consider doing the same.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

The-Hard-Proof-That-Global-Warming-Is-A-Scam-2.jpg
More...
That's just three persons, and we already know not 100% of scientists are in agreement. We've recorded pauses before, and then they ended. Prudence is in order.
 
we agree..... finally.

Quote from Ricter:

That's just three persons, and we already know not 100% of scientists are in agreement. We've recorded pauses before, and then they ended. Prudence is in order.
More...
 
What the fuck are you talking about? Your posts are a never ending string of bullshit. There is so much of it it's hard to know where to start. But let's start at your first statement..

"I would need some science showing the net warming or cooling of greenhouse gases... It may be difficult to show because the system is complex. "

Of course they know that greenhouse gasses show a net warming! That's why they are CALLED greenhouse gasses.

You're fucking ridiculous.

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous. You are assuming that the scientists are as clueless as you are. That's not the case.

Only a lawyer could lie as well as you do and be able to be so intellectually dishonest.


Quote from jem:

I would need some science showing the net warming or cooling of greenhouse gases... It may be difficult to show because the system is complex.

That is why I am comfortable telling fc he is lying his ass off every time he says he produced the science.
He can not produce it because it does not exist at the moment.
NASA says it is just doing some of the studies now.

I showed you NASA stated, "The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:"

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes

Another way science could go about showing man made co2 causes warming... might be to create truly complex dynamic models which not only predict weather in the short run but climate in the long run. When science can do that... they will probably know the net warming or cooling effect of clouds and aerosols and co2.

Right now... scientifically speaking science most definitely does not know the net warming or cooling effect of green house gases.

For instance... the biggest greenhouse gas...water vapor / clouds...from NASA

Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.


http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
More...
 
Quote from Ricter:

That's just three persons, and we already know not 100% of scientists are in agreement. We've recorded pauses before, and then they ended. Prudence is in order.
More...

Yes, Prudence is in order. As in the Prudence project, the EU funded global warming modelling effort, ending in 2004 whose data results demonstrated that man-made global warming does not exist (despite hyping the 2003 summer heat wave).

http://prudence.dmi.dk/
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

I rarely if ever watch FOX news or any other news channel (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) that consists of talking pundits with little brain power.

I review the scientific facts and think for myself.

Maybe you should consider doing the same.
More...

Well, that chart at least shows how the right deals in disinformation about AGW. Those facts that you think you are getting are really propaganda put out by the fossil fuel powers that be. But you are so stupid that you think it is equivalent to real science.

So far you posted a bullshit survey, a bullshit chart and an article co authored by a fraud. Three strikes you're out.

You have shown no ability at all to really examine facts.
 
you really are a moron who does not understand science.


1. Have you heard of water vapor or clouds?
are they a much bigger component of the greenhouse than co2?

2. What happens when you add more clouds during the day? Do we get warming or cooling?

Now do you understand what an idiot you are?
Science does not even know if adding more water vapor (clouds) causes a net cooling or warming?

Do you even understand how stupid your statement below is?

No wonder you did not understand what NASA meant when it said CO2 is a natural thermostat.

You do not even think the greenhouse can keep the earth cooler too. You are a leftist drone moron.





Quote from futurecurrents:

What the fuck are you talking about? Your posts are a never ending string of bullshit. There is so much of it it's hard to know where to start. But let's start at your first statement..

"I would need some science showing the net warming or cooling of greenhouse gases... It may be difficult to show because the system is complex. "

Of course they know that greenhouse gasses show a net warming! That's why they are CALLED greenhouse gasses.

You're fucking ridiculous.

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous. You are assuming that the scientists are as clueless as you are. That's not the case.

Only a lawyer could lie as well as you do and be able to be so intellectually dishonest.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top