The Liberal Climate Hoax?

[dcraig]

Quote from jem:

is that a joke for answer? I asked a seriously simple question
show that man is causing warming?
How could you not have that proof readily available?

where is the science
where is the data
what part of that is being caused by man?

There is very very rarely "proof" of anything in science. Science is validated by evidence and observation not by formal proof which is the domain of mathematics and philosophy.

I repeat again, there is mountains of science. The point is that you and your fellow travelers are incapable of comprehending it. The fact is that all the peak bodies of science including such institutions as the Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union, the US Academy and many corresponding institutions in other nations plus world renowned research universities and research organizations such as NASA, NCDC, CSIRO and many many more ALL accept that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW.

Is it not strange that some unqualified posters on some internet forums declare that there is no evidence?

Just to give you some tips on where to start:

1. Global temperature is rising sharply

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has strong absorption bands in the infrared. The atmosphere is (from a GHG viewpoint) not saturated with CO2 due to pressure broadening of of the absorption bands and due to the physics of radiative transfer in the atmosphere. What happens at top of atmosphere counts.

3. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is sharply rising. The increase is overwhelmingly due to human activities as confirmed by isotopic studies of atmospheric carbon.

4. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and ground studies showing an energy imbalance for the planet. More is coming in than going out.

5. Changes in solar radiation are far too small to account for the radiative imbalance. Observation confirms this.

6. The effect of CO2 is amplified by positive feedbacks. Especially important amongst the positive feedbacks is the increasing specific humidity of the atmosphere. Observation confirms this.

7. A number of very important observations cannot be properly explained in terms other than an enhanced greenhouse effect. These include:

a) Nights warming faster than days
b) Poles warming faster than equator
c) A cooling stratosphere.

There's plenty there to get started with.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

Just like atheists concerning the existence of GOD
I' sorry all opinions of clerics of the religion are discounted as mere hearsay.

Wishful thinking is not proof, there is no credible evidence that man is the driver of global warming

Define what you mean by "credible evidence" so we don't waste time playing the rightwing bait-and-switch game. That gets old real fast.

EDIT: dcraig has covered this very well. If you still don't understand, you have some homework to do.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from jem:

note...
about the 31,000 american scientists who are calling bullshit on man made global warming alarmists.....

Your petition project is the real bullshit, and a bad joke as well. WTF do I care what some AGW-denying zoologist has to say about global warming? He knows no more about the subject than the average housewife. If I have chest pains, I don't go to a dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist.

The AGW-denying climatologists plus atmospheric scientists on that petition total 151. Meanwhile 97% of climatologists support AGW.

Your petition is the height of silliness.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

Yeah it's from a liberal website. So be scientific and deal with the subject matter and not the source.

 

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from kut2k2:

Define what you mean by "credible evidence" so we don't waste time playing the rightwing bait-and-switch game. That gets old real fast.

EDIT: dcraig has covered this very well. If you still don't understand, you have some homework to do.

How about some of the silly predictions by the IPPC actually coming true.



Dcraig has covered nothing and PROVED nothing.

 

[bugscoe]

In 2008. Gore said “the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years.”

Is this true?

 

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from dcraig:

There is very very rarely "proof" of anything in science.

Well then you are just a slave to all kinds of superstitions and thinly veiled manipulations of group think errors then aren't you.

You are being played for a hapless (do gooder)fool by anti-capitalistic forces wanting to extort wealth from 1st world nations.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

Well then you are just a slave to all kinds of superstitions and thinly veiled manipulations of group think errors then aren't you.

You are being played for a hapless (do gooder)fool by anti-capitalistic forces wanting to extort wealth from 1st world nations.

Another conspiracy theory nut case.

 

[FightTheFuture]

Con game.

In games of make-believe, one has to create fictional truths.
Props generate fictional truths used in con games.
Props such as the CO2 theory generate fictional truths about global warming.
New laws of nature have been created.
The new science is at the limits of detection and the results cannot be replicated by the non-believer scientists.

 

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from dcraig:

Another conspiracy theory nut case.

You are free to have your own religion , just don't expect me to purchase indulgences to assuage your groundless fweelings of guilt.

 

[Gabfly1]

The height of buffoonery and irony: the firm belief in a god while simultaneously denying climate change, its drivers and implications. All in the name of science, of course, which, no doubt, is applied in equal dollops. And this in the 21st century.