The 95% consensus is now just 43%

[futurecurrents]

and somewhere around .1% or less find that man made co2 is causing warming.


and you know damn well that true because you and then nitro could not produce even 1 let alone 100. where as we linked to 1350 papers showing the sun and the tides and other non co2 factors were causing some or all of the warming.

so being that the skeptics have 1350 peer reviewed papers and you have produced virtually zero... (I know of 1) you are at the .1% level or lower.

Oh yeah, you are right. Only that many expressly say it in their papers. Like only .1% of biologists expressly say evolution is true with every paper. The science is so settled and understood that they have moved way beyond repeating obvious science.

Jem, you are the poster boy for the deranged Libertarian. In a political sector dominated by crazy people, you epitomize the ideology.

What's sad is that you know the science is true and future generations will suffer if we don't act yet your crazed ideology leads you to the immoral position. You are no Christian.

 

[futurecurrents]

Watch out, you might get what you're after
Cool baby, strange but not a stranger
I'm an ordinary guy
Burning down the house
Hold tight, wait 'til the party's over
Hold tight, we're in for nasty weather
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house
Here's your ticket, pack your bags
Time for jumpin' overboard
Transportation is here
Close enough but not too far,
Maybe you know where you are
Fightin' fire with fire, huah
All wet, hey you might need a raincoat
Shakedown, dreams walking in broad daylight
Three hundred, sixty five degrees
Burning down the house
It was once upon a place sometimes, I listen to myself
Gonna come in first place
People on their way to work say baby what did you expect
Gonna burst into flame
Go ahead
Burning down the house

 

[loyek590]

Trillions of dollars getting siphoned out of economies yearly to fight a problem scientistists are not even sure exists, meanwhile the "Donald Trumps" of the indurstry, who are willing to light their hair on fire with doom and gloom predictions, get all of the media coverage, yeah i see the problem.

"siphoned out"??? and just where does that money go??? How exactly is it that money is wasted????

Doesn't it just go from one person to another? How is that wasted?

I'll tell you how!!! It's because it is going down a big government socialist communistic piss pot. Talk about a waste of energy. If I can create a 1000 watts, by the time it gets down to you it is only 100 watts. Where did the 900 watts go? The government!!!

If you want to talk about energy, the government is friction.

 

[jem]

bullshit...

its probably b/c they can't find the causal connection because co2 trails water and air temperature warming and cooling in all the data.

If you could produce 100 papers showing that man made co2 causes warming... you argument might start to be accurate.

but you can't produce 10 or even 1.

lets start with one that does not rely on models.

Oh yeah, you are right. Only that many expressly say it in their papers. Like only .1% of biologists expressly say evolution is true with every paper. The science is so settled and understood that they have moved way beyond repeating obvious science.

Jem, you are the poster boy for the deranged Libertarian. In a political sector dominated by crazy people, you epitomize the ideology.

What's sad is that you know the science is true and future generations will suffer if we don't act yet your crazed ideology leads you to the immoral position. You are no Christian.

 

[futurecurrents]

bullshit...

its probably b/c they can't find the causal connection because co2 trails water and air temperature warming and cooling in all the data.

If you could produce 100 papers showing that man made co2 causes warming... you argument might start to be accurate.

but you can't produce 10 or even 1.

lets start with one that does not rely on models.

its probably b/c they can't find the causal connection


You really need to see a psychiatrist. There's nothing anyone here can do for you

 

[jem]

I wonder why we can find dozens of papers showing its the sun or the tides... and
papers which show that temps lead co2 up and down (see below)

but fraudcurrents never presents any peer reviewed papers...
could it be... there are none?


try reading some science fraudcurrents.

The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.



The paper:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

 

[futurecurrents]

I wonder why we can find dozens of papers showing its the sun or the tides... and
papers which show that temps lead co2 up and down (see below)

but fraudcurrents never presents any peer reviewed papers...
could it be... there are none?


try reading some science fraudcurrents.

The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.



The paper:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Molecular_physics_of_radiant_heat

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

I wonder why we can find dozens of papers showing its the sun or the tides... and
papers which show that temps lead co2 up and down (see below)

but fraudcurrents never presents any peer reviewed papers...
could it be... there are none?


try reading some science fraudcurrents.

The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.



The paper:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

I think that some of that is way over futurecurrents head and the rest of it is way, way over his head

 

[loyek590]

I'm so confused

Does man made co2 cause global warming?

Or does global warming cause man made co2?

I guess it would be easy to check. What is the carbon footprint of an Alaskan where it is very cold compared to the carbon foot print of a man the same age same income (adjusted) living in Florida where it is very warm?

 

[jem]

that would be a good point in a simple closed system... which is what most the agw nutters posit.

but we live in a complex partially open system with outside forces and dynamic feedbacks which research is showing are sometimes negative feedback systems.

the data shows that temps lead co2 up and down.
its going to take a hell of a lot of good science to show that the laggard is really the leader.
(so far we have not seen any in peer reviewed papers)
the best paper admitted that temps lead co2 at the poll but that eventually co2 amplified warming. Which is possible but far from proven.

We certainly don't have any science showing man made co2 causes warming.

I'm so confused

Does man made co2 cause global warming?

Or does global warming cause man made co2?

I guess it would be easy to check. What is the carbon footprint of an Alaskan where it is very cold compared to the carbon foot print of a man the same age same income (adjusted) living in Florida where it is very warm?