Look what I just received in my work mailbox -- from the Heartland Institute

My argument never is over Carbon Dioxide being a greenhouse gas. But let's all apply the laws of physics and even use Chemistry to show why the alarm is more than stunning, it is bogus science. But policy is not to be taught with science. We had a period where had that been true, teachers would have taught the concept man is cooling Earth. Man did not cool the earth nor is he creating an alarming and dangerous condition. We know CO2 will heat by 1.4 degrees by doubling to 800 ppm. We do not yet know what Man puts in. Even so, it seems that doubling will still present no danger. This planet had both plant and animal life doing quite well when CO2 levels were in the 4,000 ppm range. We are much lower than that.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...NG-six-years-Arctic-north-pole-climate-change

 

Wrong.

 

It's weird how science deniers cherry-pick when to use science.

 

What is wrong with this man's science? Why don't you accept some laws of physics?

 

So, you think that scientists are paid to "say" things?

And not only that, you say that scientists are paid to say the opposite of what they know, according to you.

Who pays scientists? And why do they pay them to do that?

And how is it that science has evolved to this point, so quickly in the last few centuries (especially the last two) if scientists are paid to say the opposite of what they know?

I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is. And how it clearly shows you have never had any sort of interaction or experience with the world of Science.

 

Yes you are.

 

Please look up the IR spectroscopy of molecules, otherwise it is hard to have a discussion. Some CO2 vibrational modes are IR active, H2O as well. In contrast, O2 and N2 are IR inactive, and, thus no greenhouse gases. It has to do with the change in dipole moment during molecular vibrations.

 

That's no "science". That's a speech! In order to call something "science" it has to undergo rigorous testing, with very stringent rules on the methodology, making falsifiable predictions, which you try to falsify using experimentation, and then you get all of this published after peer-review, and then you wait and wait until a number of other scientists do the same and arrive at the same conclusion.

And these are just the skematics. In reality there is much more than that. But clearly "Science" is not a conference. Now, I'm not saying this guy never did science. If you point to the actual scientific investigation that he did (as described above) and corresponding replications, then you can call it "science"

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years.

 

NIce graphs they prove conclusively that there is no correspondence of any sort between CO2 and Temperature other than the fact that both are increasing. Though CO2 is a smooth curve and temperature jumps around like spit on a griddle.

 

Like James Hansen of NASA

 

I like this one. Here we will find out how good the predictions were.

By the way, I used the capture feature to start the video later than other videos.

 

What is extremely clear to me is this truth. Carbon Dioxide graphs prove to me that the gas is not equally distributed over Earth.

How do we know this? Graphs of the USA prove it was hottest of record in the 1930s. Today the USA is vastly cooler.

Since Carbon Dioxide has risen, there is more evidence that Carbon Dioxide gas cools, rather than heats.

Ain't that a shame.

 

That's overstating it substantially. For a correct facsimile you'd need to have about a couple of dozen 1/4 inch dots of silver on the back of a full length mirror. Somehow I don't think that would give you much of a reflection.

 

Standards for you and I must be equal

To date, on all forums, no Democrat has presented the science.

We read their anecdotes though few of those. We are treated to their graphs. As you admit, such things are not proof nor science. So why do Democrats post on a topic refusing to use science?

 

Better see an optometrist if you can't see a correlation.

 

You better see one or look up the definition of a correspondence because you cannot have a correspondence between two graphs one of which is smooth curve and the other goes up and down like a kid riding a pogo stick up a flight of stairs.

 

Bear in mind, the video is not the beginning. I know it appears to match other videos but I selected the time to clip it.

Early in the history of the modern government, Thomas Jefferson was persuaded to believe that the Climate was much hotter. He debated Noah Webster who denied it. Webster won the debate.

Before you see that, you will learn more how this fraud lives today with us, promoted entirely by Democrats.

 

Golem informed us all such things are not science.

 

By the way

By the way even if there was a correspondence it would not necessarily mean that causality exists. For instance a graph over the last hundred years showing the increasing inseam length of means pant in the US would also trend upwards. Does that necessarily mean that we could end global warming if we all wore shorts?

 

You have now outed yourself as a high school student...or worse. Science doesn't "evolve," kid, nor does it accrete. It shifts.

Do you think that big tobacco paid for research muddying the correlation between smoking and lung cancer? or not?

 

Dr. Curry keeps testifying to clear this all up.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/29/house-science-committee-hearing/#more-22926

 

Funny how when I and perhaps others stopped to think what you gave for defense, you missed this part of science.

This will start at the close to correct point. This may look like past materials but is not at the beginning but half way or so through.

Well worth watching.

 

Democrats cut science funding to non believer scientists.

No wonder Al Gore said the debate is over.

This will take you to a bit about Dr. Gray who invented hurricane forecasting.

 

I'm too lazy to watch your pointless video. What angers me is how you anti-science people will, at your convenience, cherry-pick scientific knowledge yet disregard the same scientific method through which this knowledge is procured.