Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Bit by bit, the Warmers credibility erodes away.

And all they can do is to continue to quote junk scientists that fewer and fewer people believe.

Every day, people are deciding the AGW is baloney. The pseudo-scientists who continue to trumpet AGW are damaging science as a whole. The failure of science to clean house, ridding itself of these charletans discredits a lot of good science.

"Oh! You're a scientist. Are you one of those guys who wants to tax and regulate us to death for something you can't prove?"

---

The silly myths of your cult of AGW denial have no connection to reality, no matter how many times the bamboozled dupes in the cult repeat them to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Bit by bit, the Warmers credibility erodes away.

And all they can do is to continue to quote junk scientists that fewer and fewer people believe.

Every day, people are deciding the AGW is baloney. The pseudo-scientists who continue to trumpet AGW are damaging science as a whole. The failure of science to clean house, ridding itself of these charletans discredits a lot of good science.

"Oh! You're a scientist. Are you one of those guys who wants to tax and regulate us to death for something you can't prove?"

---

Heh!! I love the smell of a conspiracy theorist in the morning!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPA1

CO2 is a TRACE gas. .038% of the Earths atmosphere. Again, some perspective.. Nitrogen makes up 78% and Oxygen 21% of our atmosphere. Since (as you mentioned) their molecule (NO2) is a greenhouse gas you had better look at eliminating them first.

---

:lol: Once again you show your ignorance of chemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannieD

:lol: Once again you show your ignorance of chemistry.

---

I was merely replying to the post of another. Shot your wad at her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPA1

I was merely replying to the post of another. Shot your wad at her.

---

N and O are not GHGs. NO2 is. You do not need to eliminate N and O to eliminate NO2.
The .038% number is irrelevant as 97% of the atmosphere is not directly involved in IR warming.
I think I have presented you with this analogy before:
Cholesterol makes up about .05% of your body weight. Do you believe that a 40% increase would be harmful to your health?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Bit by bit, the Warmers credibility erodes away.

And all they can do is to continue to quote junk scientists that fewer and fewer people believe.

Every day, people are deciding the AGW is baloney. The pseudo-scientists who continue to trumpet AGW are damaging science as a whole. The failure of science to clean house, ridding itself of these charletans discredits a lot of good science.

"Oh! You're a scientist. Are you one of those guys who wants to tax and regulate us to death for something you can't prove?"

---

Actually the only people that seem to think this pull most if not all their information from blogs and skeptic websites, not scientific journals. Had you bothered to look at the huge amount of peer-reviewed literature that spans across many scientific practices you would see how staggeringly far off the mark you are. I'd get your own credibility in check before disparaging others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugalugs

could you show us this evidence please?

---

There have been threads on it so if you don't know do the research

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by livefree

The silly myths of your cult of AGW denial have no connection to reality, no matter how many times the bamboozled dupes in the cult repeat them to each other.

---

That is why scientists leave the IPCC and speak of the corruption

http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/20...-warming-lies/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Heh!! I love the smell of a conspiracy theorist in the morning!

---

You mean like global warming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptif219

There have been threads on it so if you don't know do the research

---

No.

You wrote:
There is evidence that warming has stopped

Please show us this evidence.


Don't run away.

You made a claim. Back it up.

I say your claim is complete crap. Here is my evidence to support what I say:



Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022


Now - please show some evidence to support your statement.