Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Do you agree with the following? Yes or no?

"It would be fair to say that most climate scientists think the ‘hiatus’ exists and is a fascinating phenomenon that deserves study."

The 2015-16 El Nino has been one of the strongest on record, temporarily elevating global temperatures by a significant margin. This means that their case rests on the El Nino temperature increase and will be destroyed when the El Nino subsides, as it is currently doing. A temporary victory over the ‘pause’.

The ‘pause’ can be accommodated into global warming – but not for very much longer. The world’s temperature has to increase outside the El Nino effect. If it doesn’t there will be some fascinating new science to work on, and many questions to be asked."

 

True.

True.

False. As I already pointed out the warming from 1998 to 2017 is 0.16C/decade and that's even with 1998 being an El Nino and 2017 being a La Nina. In other words, I have cherry picked the date range so as to maximize your position here by removing the 2015-6 El Nino while at the same time keeping the 1998 El Nino.

False. What you and the article are proposing here is to pretend like all of the warming from El Nino doesn't actually happen, but you'll happily include the cooling from La Nina. You seriously don't see a problem with that? And the irony of this position is that even when removing the warming while keeping the cooling you still have to conclude that the temperature increasing.

I want you take a good hard look at the following charts. Be honest, I won't ridicule you or anything, do you really not see the long term secular upward trend in both the global mean surface temperature and total heat content of the entire biosphere because the short term erratic up and down swings cloud your perception? It's an honest question because there really is a cognitive bias that some people suffer from which prevents them estimating the slope of trend lines from graphs of data even when the trend line is drawn for them. It's likened to color blindness in which people simply cannot see something that everyone else can and they don't know they can't see it. I'd have to dig it up again, but I posted a research paper that presented the following graphs (or graphs like them) to several non-expert people and it was surprising how many of them said they could not discern any noticeable change in the trend of the data. It sounds weird, but it does happen. There have actually been multiple people on this forum that have told me the following graphs don't show any warming.

 

Well at least you agree there was indeed a "pause in warming". On the rest maybe you should write your own article for scientific journals and see if anyone takes you serious enough to publish it.

 

Of course I agree that global mean surface temperature "paused". I have no choice because that's what the abundance of evidence says. It also means I must accept that the GMST has increased at a rate of 0.15C/decade since 1960, 0.18C/decade since 1980, 0.20C/decade since 2000, and 0.40C/decade over the last decade. So not only must I accept that and agree with it I must also accept agree with claims that the warming has accelerated. Science affords me no choice in the matter because that's what the abundance of evidence says.

 

As you earlier said the "pause" lasted from 98- 2012 and as my source said El nino may be the only reason it ended. Time will tell.

 

Indeed.

2018 will not be a new record year, due to the La Nina conditions over the first half of it, and because global average temperature lags the ENSO state by 3-6 months.

2019 probably will be a new record year, if a decent El Nino starts going in fall 2018.

 

NASA, NOAA, basically every agency that has final authority to do so.

By putting different numbers in.

To the extent that global mean surface temperature means anything, the increase to 1998 was probably less than 0.5C, and it hasn't increased any further in 20 years.

 

Right, natural causes are the climate driver.

 

In order to check your claim that all websites of all institutions of higher learnings have some kind of synopsis on AGW I posted links to websites of 3 randomly picked institutions of higher learnings producing experts on the subject.

Of course, none of them had any mentioning of AGW.

AWG is nothing, but a cult because its adepts believe in the opposite of what they see with their own eyes.

You look at the websites of 3 randomly picked institutions of higher learnings and you see what is not there.

Believers in AWG/GW/ACC/CC are scary, like brainwashed preprogrammed zombies.



Then you claimed that a proctologist, a gynecologist and urologist are as knowledgeable about properties of gases and liquids and processes of heat and mass exchange as a graduate of any of those 3 institutions is.

That is scary, lady.



Can you ma’am, tell me, how, do you think, all institutions of higher learning form their opinion about processes of heat and mass exchange in liquids and mixtures of gases - a proctologist, a gynecologist, an urologist, and a professor of gender studies get together and what… vote?





I posted 3 searchable theory of natural sciences, so that a high school junior capable to use Find function would be able to see that no working and useful theory of natural sciences requires evidence.

Can you tell me when a proctologist, a gynecologist, an urologist, and a professor of gender studies voted to validate these theories?

May God have mercy on your soul.

 

Givethe the names of institutes of higher learning. I’ll easily find the program that illustrates their commitment.
Let’s try Yale first.
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/

How about University of Vermont
http://www.uvm.edu/~vtstclim/?Page=climate_resources.html

How about the university of Maine
https://climatechange.umaine.edu/

Try the symposium at the university of Berlin.

So, these are all cults ?
You’re a strange one dude.

There are NO GOVTS. IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED FREE WORLD THAT HAVE NOT FULLY COMMITTED TO AGW. Let’s look at the web sites of any of them. Go for it goober.

There are no accredited institutes of higher learning in the free world ( and the not so free as well) that have science departments that have not like wise committed to study AGW.

Trump University doesn’t count goober.

Let’s hear the names of your institutes......

 

Lady, you are telling me again that a proctologist, urologist, gender study and climate change professors are qualified to talk about heat and mass exchange, temperature, gas and liquid dynamics and other things related to the subject.

Of course, people who are making money on the hoax ,the AMA and climate change institutions are pushing the hoax.

Not Institutions of higher learning.

I already showed you the names of my 3 randomly picked institutions institutions producing experts on the subjects..

I can link to my post, but I know the result will be the same, religious fanatics live in their own reality, they are too blind to see.


Let’s better take a look at your institutions.

Let’s try Yale first. The website is https://www.yale.edu/

Institutions related to the subject:

https://appliedphysics.yale.edu/research/physics-novel-materials

https://seas.yale.edu/

Nothing.

Next. Vermont: website is: https://www.uvm.edu/

Institutions related to the subject are:

https://www.uvm.edu/cas/physics/bs-physics

https://www.uvm.edu/cems/cee/undergraduate_programs/environmental_engineering_bs

https://www.uvm.edu/academics/studying_environment_uvm

Nothing.

Next. Maine. The website is https://umaine.edu/

Institutions related to the subject are:

https://engineering.umaine.edu/

Nothing.



Of course, I didn’t check African studies, gender studies, Bible studies institutions.

Do you think their opinion count?


Thus I still stand correct on the first point I made:

"Then you claimed that a proctologist, a gynecologist and urologist are as knowledgeable about properties of gases and liquids and processes of heat and mass exchange as a graduate of any of those 3 institutions is.

That is scary, lady."


You omitted two important and clarifying the first point questions:

2. Can you ma’am, tell me, how, do you think, all institutions of higher learning form their opinion about processes of heat and mass exchange in liquids and mixtures of gases - a proctologist, a gynecologist, an urologist, and a professor of gender studies get together and what… vote?

3. Can you tell me when a proctologist, a gynecologist, an urologist, and a professor of gender studies voted to validate these theories?



Can you answer the simple questions?

It is always interesting to see how minds of religious fanatics work.

(Why nothing?
Because there is the simplest rule in natural sciences:
If a theory requires a majority and/or a vote, it is a hoax which has no place in natural sciences.
If the hoax take over institutions of higher learning that would make life miserable for Dems, and reps, left and right, they all would become like Soviets in the USSR.
GW/CC change hoax is a lot more dangerous for Americans than Russia or ISIS.)

 

W

What are you babbling about ?
Accredited universities have natural science departments. They all support AGW. You do know what the natural sciences are ? For example, Geology is one. Even though it is not directly a climate science, their contributions have been immense by divulging the Co2 levels by indicators in the rocks over Millennium. What makes the case so air tight, is the convergence of evidence across the entire spectrum of science. I don't have a clue where you're going with your made up tripe.
You're throwing words out there to sound like you know what you're talking about. Simply pick out any accredited institute of higher learning and research Their natural science departments with respect to AGW.

 

https://climatechange.umaine.edu/

What's so hard finding a climate change institute at university of Maine ?
Can't google ?

 

Can't read?

Let me re-post and bold it for you:

Lady, you are telling me again that a proctologist, urologist, gender study and climate change professors are qualified to talk about heat and mass exchange, temperature, gas and liquid dynamics and other things related to the subject.

Of course, people who are making money on the hoax ,the AMA and climate change institutions are pushing the hoax.

Not Institutions of higher learning.

I already showed you the names of my 3 randomly picked institutions institutions producing experts on the subjects..

I can link to my post, but I know the result will be the same, religious fanatics live in their own reality, they are too blind to see.


Let’s better take a look at your institutions.

Let’s try Yale first. The website is https://www.yale.edu/

Institutions related to the subject:

https://appliedphysics.yale.edu/research/physics-novel-materials

https://seas.yale.edu/

Nothing.

Next. Vermont: website is: https://www.uvm.edu/

Institutions related to the subject are:

https://www.uvm.edu/cas/physics/bs-physics

https://www.uvm.edu/cems/cee/undergraduate_programs/environmental_engineering_bs

https://www.uvm.edu/academics/studying_environment_uvm

Nothing.

Next. Maine. The website is https://umaine.edu/

Institutions related to the subject are:

https://engineering.umaine.edu/

Nothing.



Of course, I didn’t check African studies, gender studies, Bible studies institutions.

Do you think their opinion count?


Thus I still stand correct on the first point I made:

"Then you claimed that a proctologist, a gynecologist and urologist are as knowledgeable about properties of gases and liquids and processes of heat and mass exchange as a graduate of any of those 3 institutions is.

That is scary, lady."


You omitted two important and clarifying the first point questions:

2. Can you ma’am, tell me, how, do you think, all institutions of higher learning form their opinion about processes of heat and mass exchange in liquids and mixtures of gases - a proctologist, a gynecologist, an urologist, and a professor of gender studies get together and what… vote?

3. Can you tell me when a proctologist, a gynecologist, an urologist, and a professor of gender studies voted to validate these theories?



Can you answer the simple questions?

It is always interesting to see how minds of religious fanatics work.

(Why nothing?
Because there is the simplest rule in natural sciences:
If a theory requires a majority and/or a vote, it is a hoax which has no place in natural sciences.
If the hoax take over institutions of higher learning that would make life miserable for Dems, and reps, left and right, they all would become like Soviets in the USSR.
GW/CC change hoax is a lot more dangerous for Americans than Russia or ISIS.)

 

Just google the school's name and "climate change" and you'll get their work on it. Can't do that ?

 

All you're doing is going to the web sites and avoiding mention of climate change. You still don't know how to google related topics......sad.http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/

 

There are no countries, accredited universities or large corporation that don't believe in AGW

 

You claimed that all institutions of higher learning support AGW.

I googled some Universities – and as everyone can see – nothing.

I goggled the natural science departments, schools of those Universities which produce experts on the subject of warming – and as everyone can see - nothing.

If you made your claim more accurate and in compliance with your links – all climate change institutions support AGW – I agree, no doubt about that.


I shouldn’t ask you because you have demonstrated that you have no ability to answer simple questions even if they repeated 3 times and bolded for your, but just for the kicks and to confirm that you have no ability to answer simple questions, but can only like zombie to repeat what you are told

How can you know that Geology is a natural science?

If administrators of Universities care more about politics and government connections, flow of taxpayers money; large corporations for sure firstly care about environment.

Another simple question:

Are you sure large corporations care about environment?

 

Tell me the names you’re pretending that don’t support AGW and I’ll easily find the programs that illustrate their support of AGW. It’s easy to find these support systems. You just google “ climate change” along with the institute name. You’re afraid to even say the words ?
Corporations ? This is straight from Exxon Mobile. Do you want a list of major corporations that support AGW ?
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

Why do you guys play so ignorant of the world around you. Science is the only avenue for man’s best ideas for generations. Nothing else comes close.

 

read
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...gle-coca-cola-apple-join-obamas-fight-against

 

Dah. The only institution that can fight the ravages of climate change here in the US is the US and local govs through taxes. The more severe the effects, the more your taxes will go up. Corporations don’t want to be taxed, along with their customers out of existence if the ravages of climate change get too severe. The more we wait, the higher the costs for tomorrow. It’s a business decision support climate change programs.

 

you don’t know how to google do you ?

 

Woman, you quoted the same post 3 times, made 3 replies and none of them addressed the post and the questions.

Something is wrong, I do not want to hurt you.

Take it easy.

 

Something is wrong with you fella. You've been assuming too much.

 

No assumption, only believers in AWG cannot see that you quoted the same post 3 times, made 3 replies and none of them addressed the post and the question.

Everyone else can.