Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Avoidance strategies???

 

Why are you changing the subject - cannot answer Mannie's question about misquoting

 

Ha-Ha!

Very good, Inquisitor.

If proving carbon dioxide were indeed a dangerous gas that will cause our climate to increase to a very high temperature from which we would not recover, were that easy to do, there would be absolutely no doubt about the scientific evidence, and we would all agree.

But the "warmists" can't prove this theory, and this is why they must result to childish insults, taunts and dishonest data and phony conclusions to try and prove their point.

What childish little children the "warmists" are!

 

Uh... the numerical value of .000282% is .00000282

You have to divide by 100. That's why labeling your numbers is important.

 

Bird performed the calculations incorrectly.

He has created a diversion for his mistake.

This is what the "labeling" discussion is all about.

 

You did not come all alone for a little trolling/bulling fest, did you?

Are others ariving soon?

All done here: http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-we-did-not-have-co2-atmosphere-today-11.html ?

 

huh ?

 

My college students have a better understanding of science than you do.

C'mon James... Are you being honest or are u purposefully distorting every facet of the climate issue that you post on? Have you ever actually read a scholarly scientific paper on the topic?

 

(((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))

That is what I have been trying to tell them - all they do is launch Ad Homs in reply

 

Funny how the supposed eight grade science teacher is arguing AGAINST a request to label numbers. My eighth grade science teacher gave me 0s if I failed to label my units. Worst. Science Teacher. Ever. Guy should be fired.

 

Nope, just right-wing anti-science blogs, as evidenced in the numerous threads begun on this topic.

 

Please do not be disheartened, Tipper.

The "warmies" have been wrong with their predictions in the past and they will be wrong with their predictions in the future. Their beliefs are not based on good science; instead their beliefs are based purely on politics.

The recent scientific data are very clear. The earth's surface temperature has at last leveled out and has not increased in ten years. The "warmies" are starting to panic. This is why they often lash out at and become very angry with people who challenge their deeply held “religious" beliefs!

Your friend,

James

 

Global temperature according to denialists

 

You are mistaken once again, bird.

Here is how we view global warming.



The "warmies" in this group who support the theory of "anthropogenic" global warming never provide any hard scientific data that conclusively supports this non-scientific theory. All they can do is provide a chart from NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years. Source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

This slight increase over a span of over 50 years is not credible evidence of global warming.

I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 1000 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friends! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.

Nice try, bird, but no cigar!

 

And once again you are going to be reported for linking to secondary sources without attribution and not to primary sites

You do not have to link if it is a primary site because the URL of the picture is embedded in the link for the picture - if you are linking to a secondary site such as photo bucket the original url is NOT embedded and could be any graph from anywhere

However I have confirmed it is NASA and it is from THIS site
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

Now you do understand that represents global MEAN temperatures don't you?

You also understand that is GLOBAL SURFACE temperatures don't you?

And you do understand that it is the impact of that on the climate that is the concern?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page6.php

 

Ha-Ha!

You are funny, bird.

You need a new set of glasses. My source is indeed linked and referenced.

Nice try but no cigar!

By the way, this information was very good.

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

 

Global warming is indeed a farce. The "warmies" are playing into the hands of the corporatists and globalists who intend to make billions of dollars on the world markets by trading in carbon credits.

To these influential people, the "warmies" are nothing more than "useful idiots" in their plans to become very wealth by peddling the false and unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming.

 

Yes, that information is correct but if there is more than is needed to supply our current requirements?

More is not always better you know

And yes I have a severe astigmatism - thanks for the insult

 

I did not mean my comment as an insult.

I too wear glasses and I often have to have my prescription changed so I can see more clearly.

I'm sorry to lean you have a severe astigmatism.

I hope it is easily correctable.

 

Hi the Global warming is day by day increasing becose of vehicles and chamical industries citting the forestes the CO2 increasing more so we can follow the RRR (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) formula.

 

Is this merely your opinion, or do you have reliable scientific evidence this this is actually happening?

Are you aware that for every tree that is cut down by the timber industry, a new one is planted to replace it?

 

What a lot of rot!!

There is more to the planet than the USA you know!

 

You two do know that Lasik will now correct an astigmatism. I had a bad astigmatism. I now see 20/15. Best $3,000 I ever spent.

 

The real argument isn't over if CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is. Arguing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas proves nothing. The argument is over feedbacks. The warmmongers argue that the earth has a 3-5X positive feedback. The skeptics argue that its 0.7X. One is realistic. One is fantasy. One occurs commonly in nature. One never occurs in nature over any long period of time. If you understand systems you will know which one is impossible given the age of the atmosphere.

The idea that the earths atmosphere has a net positive feedback and that only a perfect balance has held the atmosphere together over hundreds of millions of years is Gaia worshiping bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The atmosphere is stable not because of perfect balance. Its stable because like all stable systems it has a negative feedback.

 

You DO know that if the cornea is thinned as in cases of Keratoconus Lasik is the worst thing you can get done?