2) You're wrong. Cosmic rays? LOL ! You mean the global cooling thing that was not the majority opinion in the 70's and in fact was a minority one that was hyped by the media? And is now held forth as some kind of proof that the current vast consensus for AGW is wrong by denier dummies? You really don't know much about AGW, do you?
The World Bank's Global Warming Agenda
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
2) You're wrong. Cosmic rays? LOL ! You mean the global cooling thing that was not the majority opinion in the 70's and in fact was a minority one that was hyped by the media? And is now held forth as some kind of proof that the current vast consensus for AGW is wrong by denier dummies? You really don't know much about AGW, do you?
I don't need to know anything about , leprechauns , agw or unicorns.
Like I said the solution to global warming is straight forward and simple and has been proved many times over.
So all this nonsense about limiting fossil fuel use is silly.
OK, now I'm curious. What is your "solution"?
You mean , YOU mr brilliant science guy doesn't know how to cool the earth?
SHOCKING
Yes, I do know about it. In the face of overwhelming evidence for CO2 based GW, and plain old common sense, it's held out as one of the last desperate retorts of the deniers but in fact it has no support among the science community as a credible cause of the current warming. It is you and your fellow science-ignorant Republican flat-earthers that are "following the herd".
"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.
Cosmic rays may play a part in helping form clouds. If this is the case, increased cosmic rays would lead to more cloud cover, resulting in a cooling effect. Conversely, decreased cosmic rays would warm the earth. To calculate the maximum possible role of cosmic rays in recent warming, global temperatures were compared to cosmic radiation levels measured by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface. While there was good correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature prior to 1970, the correlation breaks down sharply after 1970. The analysis concludes that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase" (Krivova 2003).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Your anger really diminishes anything factual you may have to say. I stop reading your posts as soon as I encounter an insult or two. Its not an inducement to give your thoughts much consideration.
In your honor I burned a *huge* bonfire all day today. Leaves, pine needles, pine cones, tumbleweeds and a massive quantity of dogshit.
Also tossed in a few almond logs to keep the fire very hot. I must have burned a couple of truckloads of yard debris. One wouldn't think that dogshit would burn but given sufficient heat...
In October I might have hauled it all to the dump but since the November election it makes more sense to save the $50.00 landfill fee and the $10.00 of gas to make the trip and just emit a few pounds of carbon and particulate matter into the atmosphere. There was a light breeze so all of that stuff is heading to Nevada and Southern Utah. Problem solved... for free!
wow I'm impressed.
Forgive me for being a rube but all this time you've been trying to sell the fear of the AGW disaster scenario and I haven't heard you mention a peep about the danger posed by near earth objects.
Shouldn't you be giving some equal time to other potential disasters?
IMHO: AGW appears to be a religious quest for you to proselytize to the world, which speaks of desperation instead of scientific truth.