APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"

[tinfoil]

I forgot about a little script I wrote to graph NOAA data
http://stirfrydesign.110mb.com/climatemetrics/sunspots.html

works in firefox only I think. Don't click if you're using internet explorer because it won't work.

 

[Taichiliberal]

March 15, 2001 * 19 comments

More Proof of Global Warming
By Harald Franzen

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm


In developing new sources for oil and gas, which of the following do you favor most?
Carbon tax Cap-and-trade agreements
International energy efficiency & fuel performance standards


Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts. But a new report, based on an analysis of infrared long-wave radiation data from two different space missions, may change their minds. "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed, and that they can be attributed to changes in greenhouse gases over a long time period," says John Harries, a professor at Imperial College in London and lead author of the study published today in Nature.

As the sun's radiation hits the earth's surface, it is reemitted as infrared radiation. This radiation is then partly trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)�as well as water vapor. Satellites can measure changes in the infrared radiation spectrum, allowing scientists to detect changes in the earth's natural greenhouse effect and to deduce which greenhouse gas concentrations have changed.

The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft�the NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. The findings indicated long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12 concentrations and, consequently, a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect

 

[tinfoil]

LOL WUT?

How does your link establish humans causing catastrophic climate change?

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL WUT?

How does your link establish humans causing catastrophic climate change?

Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products?

Translation: My link proves nothing and I know it.

 

[tinfoil]

Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products?

the topic is this: CO2 theory and how it's been misrepresented as proven theory.

I don't dispute the greenhouse effect... just the role it plays in climate change.. which has been overstated.

I have given examples of natural forcing cycles that prove the warming trend we are in is a natural event.


learn what the argument is about. Citing other types of forcing makes no sense in this context and only serves to show you do not undersatand what I'm saying.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products?

the topic is this: CO2 theory and how it's been misrepresented as proven theory. Of which you gave only ONE SIDE of that issue. When I presented other sides with equal scientifice backing, you just threw every article you could find on different aspects of the global warming issue. The last article I presented was in answer to your postings....and as is plainly evident here, you didn't read it carefully and comprehensively, thereby making a blunder regarding man made contributions to the problem of the atmosphere trapping green house gases...WHICH INCLUDE CO2.

I don't dispute the greenhouse effect... just the role it plays in climate change.. which has been overstated.

By all the posts you put forth, you imply that there is NO part of green house effect that mankind markedly affects. The last article I linked shows quite the opposite(part of the "global warming" issue).

I have given examples of natural forcing cycles that prove the warming trend we are in is a natural event. Ahhh, but what your articles always seem to leave out is the ADDITIONAL problems caused when you throw in industrial air pollution, deforestation and water/ocean pollution. Combine that with mother nature's natural cycle, and you have the global warming effect. That is what you so desperately want to ignore and try to magically separate from the discussion. I've given scientific FACTS and PROOF of this....that you chose to ignore it and stubbornly repeat yourself is irrelevent.


learn what the argument is about. Practice what you preach here, genius. Learn to read carefully and comprehensively. Citing other types of forcing makes no sense in this context and only serves to show you do not undersatand what I'm saying.

That you claim that marked reduction and pollution of the vary things nature uses to CHANGE CO2
TO OXYGEN coupled with a marked increase in man made CO2 and other pollutants is out of context of the discussion displays your insipid stubborness on the issue...either that or a fantastic inability to grasp a simple concept of reality.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Translation: My link proves nothing and I know it.

And of course, you can answer the question that your compadre lacks the courage or intelligence to answer?

Once again, you have earned your screen name.

 

[tinfoil]

T

the "other side"?

I posted the critque of the statisitical use of data upon which the "other side" rests the case of and uses as proof of CO2 theory by way of attempting to demonstrate tree ring growth rates as a proxy for CO2 concentration. These assumptions, the tree ring data correlations established by the Yamal data set sample which contained only 12 trees, were used to formulate the CO2 concentrations from other tree ring data sets from around the world in statistical modeling of past climates.

In addition, there are new studies which show cosmic ray flux may be respopnsible for cycles in tree ring growth. Imagine the plants reacting to cosmic rays? Ludicrous, you say? Hardly. I think I linked a study earlier.

The methane news of late means that CO2 once again has been overstated, since more forcing by methane means less unknown forcing getting attributed to CO2 humans have contributed.

Now you must stop assuming I reject science. I embrace science. That's why I bring you qualified links. Early on here at the series of sites this crowd has followed, I was indeed an ignorant parrot spouting off Rush Limbaugh drivel, but I've grown and shed myself of the party label. I don't have the intense hatred of obama like I would have if I were the same person. I spent countless hours reading the science for myself. I have tons of links if you want me to create a page of links. Not articles, but actual studies.

I'm aware you believe the IPCC is infallible. However, you must come to understand they were either duped by or were implicit in statistical fraud. Science demands you to be critical of their body of work.

 

[Taichiliberal]

T

the "other side"? Other information that you supplied that is pertinent to the discussion at hand...information that you consistently ignore (or try to).

I posted the critque of the statisitical use of data upon which the "other side" rests the case of and uses as proof of CO2 theory by way of attempting to demonstrate tree ring growth rates as a proxy for CO2 concentration. These assumptions, the tree ring data correlations established by the Yamal data set sample which contained only 12 trees, were used to formulate the CO2 concentrations from other tree ring data sets from around the world in statistical modeling of past climates.

Actually you used information that deals with JUST ONE aspect as to the relevence of CO2 to the global warming issue. I didn't contest your findings or that of the article, I just pointed out that it is disingenuous at best to use this as the be all, end all conclusion as to global warming (or climate change, is you're so inclined) when there is clearly other evidence available.

In addition, there are new studies which show cosmic ray flux may be respopnsible for cycles in tree ring growth. Imagine the plants reacting to cosmic rays? Ludicrous, you say? Hardly. I think I linked a study earlier. You advocate belief in the theoretical, at best. What I linked is certifiable FACT that is CURRENT. Big difference.

The methane news of late means that CO2 once again has been overstated, since more forcing by methane means less unknown forcing getting attributed to CO2 humans have contributed. Again, theory......you STILL cannot logically refute or disprove the links I posted. All you're doing is just throwing everything and the kitchen sink in hopes that it will diminish the information and statements I put forth....you have failed to this.

Now you must stop assuming I reject science. I never said or insinuated that you did....I just pointed out that you are closing your mind to scientific information that contradicts your beliefs. I embrace science. That's why I bring you qualified links. Early on here at the series of sites this crowd has followed, I was indeed an ignorant parrot spouting off Rush Limbaugh drivel, but I've grown and shed myself of the party label. I don't have the intense hatred of obama like I would have if I were the same person. I spent countless hours reading the science for myself. I have tons of links if you want me to create a page of links. Not articles, but actual studies. Again, what you've put forth here is just ONE ASPECT of the equation....you just close your mind to what contradicts your beliefs and personal conclusions. The links I gave were NOT just articles, as they contained studies and links references to scientific studies. The short of it is you keep repeating yourself in various ways and then spamming with all types of articles while ingoring what you don't like. That I was able to point out in the last exchange how you DID NOT read carefully and comprehensively the contents of the last links speaks volumes of your mindset on this subject.

I'm aware you believe the IPCC is infallible. Which demonstrates your myopic and biased mindset on this subject. No where or no time did I state, allude, insinuate what you claim here. That is how YOU perceive things....challenge equates denial of facts. As the chronology of the posts shows, that is NOT how I operate...or what I presented. Go back and check. However, you must come to understand they were either duped by or were implicit in statistical fraud. Science demands you to be critical of their body of work.

See above responses.

 

[Good Luck]

RE: Scientific American article

Where is the study that establishes the link making global warming a consequence of long term increases in these gasses? Any dough head can simply assume - as have the majority of AGW proponents - that measuring increases in GHGs proves global warming. That is NOT the way science works. Studies of paloegeologic data shows a CORRELATION between GHGs and warmer periods. However, the actual cause/effect relationship between GHG ratios and mean global temperatures has NOT been established by a long shot. In fact, most planetary models indicate that carbon forcing of CO2 and CH4 does not take place at the concentrations being measured on Earth:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=ba13432389dabfd1253e8b7b8a8b702b

whereas solar forcing does indicate a cause/effect relationship:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4569107e970b157f8d4e23a920ad0792

As such, concerns over man made GHGs as a factor in global warming (or climate change, which ever term is the current politically correct one) cannot be shown through modeling of carbon forcing, while measurements of solar flux, and their effect on Earth and the other solar planets has been proven as a cause/effect relationship.

 

[Taichiliberal]

RE: Scientific American article

Where is the study that establishes the link making global warming a consequence of long term increases in these gasses? Any dough head can simply assume - as have the majority of AGW proponents - that measuring increases in GHGs proves global warming. That is NOT the way science works. Studies of paloegeologic data shows a CORRELATION between GHGs and warmer periods. However, the actual cause/effect relationship between GHG ratios and mean global temperatures has NOT been established by a long shot. In fact, most planetary models indicate that carbon forcing of CO2 and CH4 does not take place at the concentrations being measured on Earth:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=ba13432389dabfd1253e8b7b8a8b702b

whereas solar forcing does indicate a cause/effect relationship:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4569107e970b157f8d4e23a920ad0792

As such, concerns over man made GHGs as a factor in global warming (or climate change, which ever term is the current politically correct one) cannot be shown through modeling of carbon forcing, while measurements of solar flux, and their effect on Earth and the other solar planets has been proven as a cause/effect relationship.

All your links DO NOT take into account the reduction in oxygen producing elements of our planet and an increase in ARTIFICIALLY produced pollutants into our air and oceans.

Any "dough head" can pretend that unless someone spells it out for them, the links and correlations do not exists.

 

[Good Luck]

All your links DO NOT take into account the reduction in oxygen producing elements of our planet and an increase in ARTIFICIALLY produced pollutants into our air and oceans.

Any "dough head" can pretend that unless someone spells it out for them, the links and correlations do not exists.

Already been over the "reduction in oxygen producing elements" bullshit. The amount of photosynthesis reduced through deforestation (which is minimal considering the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs in the oceans and other bodies of water) is more than made up for by increased plant activity of domesticated plants.

As for artificially produced pollutants, they are in the same boat as CO2, as there is no study that even indicates, let alone proves a cause/effect relationship between their introduction and mean global temperatures. This despite the millions of dollars thrown at AGW "scientists" to do such studies. All you have is guesswork and innuendo. "These compounds tend to retain heat. The Earth is in a warming trend. Therefore these compounds are causing the warming trend." simply is NOT good science, even if the logic appears sound. Science is about PROVING logical assumptions, not relying on them.

 

[Good Luck]

BTW: I never once denied a link, or correlation between GHGs and mean global temperatures. That relationship is well established. What is NOT established is whether GHGs CAUSE mean global temperatures to rise, or if they are an EFFECT of a mean global temperature increase. All tests conducted using concentrations contained in our atmosphere which examine the cause/effect relationship point more toward temperatures driving GHG concentrations rather than the other way around. It's not until you get to concentrations 100 times or more greater (effectively making our atmosphere unbreatheable anyway) that GHGs actually end up driving further temperature increases.

You DO understand the difference between correlation and cause/effect, don't you?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Already been over the "reduction in oxygen producing elements" bullshit. The amount of photosynthesis reduced through deforestation (which is minimal considering the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs in the oceans and other bodies of water) is more than made up for by increased plant activity of domesticated plants.

Says who? How in the hell can more oxygen be exchanged for CO2 if you remove large amounts the plants? That not only doesn't make mathematical sense, it doesnt' make scientific sense....hell, it doesn't make common sense. You remove half a forest and replace the area with concrete and steel, you've got only half a forest to exchange the CO2....period.

As for artificially produced pollutants, they are in the same boat as CO2, as there is no study that even indicates, let alone proves a cause/effect relationship between their introduction and mean global temperatures. This despite the millions of dollars thrown at AGW "scientists" to do such studies. All you have is guesswork and innuendo. "These compounds tend to retain heat. The Earth is in a warming trend. Therefore these compounds are causing the warming trend." simply is NOT good science, even if the logic appears sound. Science is about PROVING logical assumptions, not relying on them.

Wrong....the last link I gave shows how CFC's are mixing in with particles that are screwing up the ozone layer and other such nasties. And if you REALLY want to get educated on the subject, do a little research regarding "acid rain".

As usual, you ignore what you don't like and then give a false representation as to what is presented. Fortunately, the recorded posts are there to expose your folly.

 

[Taichiliberal]

BTW: I never once denied a link, or correlation between GHGs and mean global temperatures. That relationship is well established. What is NOT established is whether GHGs CAUSE mean global temperatures to rise, or if they are an EFFECT of a mean global temperature increase. All tests conducted using concentrations contained in our atmosphere which examine the cause/effect relationship point more toward temperatures driving GHG concentrations rather than the other way around. It's not until you get to concentrations 100 times or more greater (effectively making our atmosphere unbreatheable anyway) that GHGs actually end up driving further temperature increases.

You DO understand the difference between correlation and cause/effect, don't you?

You do understand that no matter how many ways you try to deny the facts, they won't go away. Cause: deforestation, pollution, urbanization.
Effect: smog and "poor air quality" days over major cities throughout the world, acid rain killed lakes, dead rivers, diminished plant life, dead zones of various shore line areas across the world. Concentrations of pollutants, including CO2 from auto emissions and factory smoke stacks, found in upper atmosphere, increase in melting of ice pack areas at both poles, levels of man made pollutants, CO2 found increasing over years in ice core samples.

Conclusion: Bad habits by mankind add to and accelerate effects of natural climate changes...the enhancement labled "global warming".

Got that bunky?

 

[Good Luck]

You do understand that no matter how many ways you try to deny the facts, they won't go away. Cause: deforestation, pollution, urbanization.
Effect: smog and "poor air quality" days over major cities throughout the world, acid rain killed lakes, dead rivers, diminished plant life, dead zones of various shore line areas across the world. Concentrations of pollutants, including CO2 from auto emissions and factory smoke stacks, found in upper atmosphere, increase in melting of ice pack areas at both poles, levels of man made pollutants, CO2 found increasing over years in ice core samples.

Conclusion: Bad habits by mankind add to and accelerate effects of natural climate changes...the enhancement labled "global warming".

Got that bunky?

Obviously you do NOT realize that no matter how often you repeat the lies of the far left, it does not make their claims true. Deforestation - with regards to global warming is boogie. The plants of human agriculture provide more photosynthesis per acre than the forests. (with regards to the diminished habitat of a large number of species - a whole different topic.

Acid rain, CFCs, other pollutants and their effect on ecosystems? Not what we are talking about, is it? Want to talk about the negative effects of pollution in general, start another thread, and we'd probably be on the same side. I am all for diminished use of petroleum as an energy source, more stringent requirements for reprocessing of industrial wastes, etc.

But as a factor in global warming, climate change, no. There is no scientific evidence the two are linked in a cause/effect relationship. Once more for the learning impaired: a logical conclusion, whether one uses deductive or inductive logic, is NOT a scientific conclusion. At best it is the basis around which a testable hypothesis may be formed. When it comes to SCIENTIFIC evidence, the data points the other direction. CO2 and CH4 increases are the result of, not the cause of warming temperatures. Also, according the the REAL scientific studies (as opposed to politically motivated pseudoscience derived from movies) man made pollutants, while undeniably harmful in other ways, are not found in high enough concentrations to produce or contribute to a greenhouse effect. Additionally, neither CO2 nor CH4 are found in concentrations high enough to contribute significantly to a greenhouse effect. According to that first study I linked you to, the TOTAL concentrations of both CO2 and CH4 COMBINED in our atmosphere cannot be linked to a measurable greenhouse effect. GHGs of all kinds simply must be much higher to actually cause a greenhouse effect. In laboratory studies the concentrations have to be literally hundreds of times higher before their greenhouse effect actually makes a difference in re-radiated heat. Other factors - like simple cloud cover - so outweigh CO2 or CH4 contributions they are statistically negligible, and realistically non-existent.

Conclusions:

1) While it is desirable for us to significantly reduce the amount of pollutants we release into our ecosystems, many desirable alternatives, such as using liquifaction of coal for fuel, are unnecessarily eliminated from consideration with the whole AGW scare. AGW is a boogie, and more evidence against its claims are being mounted on a constant basis.

2) According to paleogeologic data, we are in a warming trend. That warming trend could well continue - as did the previous period of interglaciation - until our icecaps are half their current size. Instead of focussing on bogus AGW claims and thereby spending a whole ton of irreplaceable resources combating what has been going on for over a million years, it would be far better to spend those resources preparing ourselves for the coming changes.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You do understand that no matter how many ways you try to deny the facts, they won't go away. Cause: deforestation, pollution, urbanization.
Effect: smog and "poor air quality" days over major cities throughout the world, acid rain killed lakes, dead rivers, diminished plant life, dead zones of various shore line areas across the world. Concentrations of pollutants, including CO2 from auto emissions and factory smoke stacks, found in upper atmosphere, increase in melting of ice pack areas at both poles, levels of man made pollutants, CO2 found increasing over years in ice core samples.

Conclusion: Bad habits by mankind add to and accelerate effects of natural climate changes...the enhancement labled "global warming".

Got that bunky?

Obviously you do NOT realize that no matter how often you repeat the lies of the far left, it does not make their claims true. Deforestation - with regards to global warming is boogie. The plants of human agriculture provide more photosynthesis per acre than the forests. (with regards to the diminished habitat of a large number of species - a whole different topic.

Deforestation is a left wing lie, according to you? Acid rain killing lakes and damaging forests is a left wing lie, according to you? Industrial pollution of our ocean shores, is a left wing lie, according to you? Industrial pollution of the air we breath is a left wing lie, according to you? The smog that hangs over the vast urban sprawll is a left wing lie, according to you? And all of this, which occurs ACROSS THE GLOBE and has increased over the last century, has negligible effect on the planet, according to you? Man, you are in a world of denial!

Acid rain, CFCs, other pollutants and their effect on ecosystems? Not what we are talking about, is it? Want to talk about the negative effects of pollution in general, start another thread, and we'd probably be on the same side. I am all for diminished use of petroleum as an energy source, more stringent requirements for reprocessing of industrial wastes, etc.Yeah, it's part of it, because in some absurd defense of the the industrial status quo, it's vital to deny industrial pollutants. If CFC's and other man made pollutants clog our atmosphere, they damage, the flora and fauna and water. You're talking about the very system that exchanges CO2 for oxygen...forests, oceans, etc. Diminish and damage them, you increase CO2 in the atmosphere when you have such things as smokestacks and car exhaust adding daily around the clock at an increasing rate for a century. It's all connected, and despite the little games of myopic analysis and out of context points of view, they always will be.

But as a factor in global warming, climate change, no. There is no scientific evidence the two are linked in a cause/effect relationship. Once more for the learning impaired: a logical conclusion, whether one uses deductive or inductive logic, is NOT a scientific conclusion. At best it is the basis around which a testable hypothesis may be formed. When it comes to SCIENTIFIC evidence, the data points the other direction. CO2 and CH4 increases are the result of, not the cause of warming temperatures. Also, according the the REAL scientific studies (as opposed to politically motivated pseudoscience derived from movies) man made pollutants, while undeniably harmful in other ways, are not found in high enough concentrations to produce or contribute to a greenhouse effect. Additionally, neither CO2 nor CH4 are found in concentrations high enough to contribute significantly to a greenhouse effect. According to that first study I linked you to, the TOTAL concentrations of both CO2 and CH4 COMBINED in our atmosphere cannot be linked to a measurable greenhouse effect. GHGs of all kinds simply must be much higher to actually cause a greenhouse effect. In laboratory studies the concentrations have to be literally hundreds of times higher before their greenhouse effect actually makes a difference in re-radiated heat. Other factors - like simple cloud cover - so outweigh CO2 or CH4 contributions they are statistically negligible, and realistically non-existent.

Conclusions:

1) While it is desirable for us to significantly reduce the amount of pollutants we release into our ecosystems, many desirable alternatives, such as using liquifaction of coal for fuel, are unnecessarily eliminated from consideration with the whole AGW scare. AGW is a boogie, and more evidence against its claims are being mounted on a constant basis.

2) According to paleogeologic data, we are in a warming trend. That warming trend could well continue - as did the previous period of interglaciation - until our icecaps are half their current size. Instead of focussing on bogus AGW claims and thereby spending a whole ton of irreplaceable resources combating what has been going on for over a million years, it would be far better to spend those resources preparing ourselves for the coming changes.

You can repeat all this six ways to Sunday until dooms day (I've addressed all this before in previous posts, you lacing it with nothing but the standard supposition and conjecture and accusatory opinion non-withstanding) but you cannot dismiss or disprove the FACTS I produced in my links or their logical conclusions.

 

[Good Luck]

You can repeat all this six ways to Sunday until dooms day (I've addressed all this before in previous posts, you lacing it with nothing but the standard supposition and conjecture and accusatory opinion non-withstanding) but you cannot dismiss or disprove the FACTS I produced in my links or their logical conclusions.

The problem is, Twinkey, you have not "proven" a damned thing. As has been repeatedly pointed out, time after time, thread after thread after thread, posting the unsupported conclusions of others is NOT proof. And I will repeat one more time, for you are obviously without the ability to learn quickly, "logical conclusions" are NOT facts!! Logic is a process by which one can arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence.

LEARN what the fucking scientific method is, and where "logical conclusions" fall in that process, and MAYBE you can actually discuss the issue from a level beyond what your political masters tell you to think.

No where have I denied that industrial pollution is harming the ecosystems. EXCEPT with respect to global warming, where the actual scientific evidence does not support that "logical conclusion." There is no scientific evidence that CO2 exchange rates are diminished. There is no scientific evidence that CO2, CH4, nor man made pollutants are contributing to an unprecedented greenhouse effect.

As for simply repeating myself, what the fuck are you doing? I gave you links to actual scientific studies which support what I have been saying. You give me links to articles in popular (ie: written for laymen) magazines of science about a new method confirming (a fact never denied) that CO2, CH4 and manmade pollutants have increased over the past two decades. I ask you where the evidence is for the conclusions that these measured increases are, in actuality, responsible for global warming. You give me "logic".

Come back when you can comprehend the difference between logic and scientifically derived evidence. How about producing an actual scientific STUDY that shows CO2, CH4, or CFCs are actually found in high enough contributions to have a greenhouse effect attributed to them. I gave you TWO studies showing the exact opposite. So shove you "logic" where it belongs. If you cannot produce genuine science, then it is apparent all you have is what your political masters gave you in your breakfast cereal.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The problem is, Twinkey, you have not "proven" a damned thing. I don't have to "prove" what is a matter of fact and history and reality, genius. As I demonstrated in the previous post, YOU are just trying to ignore reality in order to support your myopic view point. Pretending that deforestation, pollution and such are negligible when dealing with the oxygen/CO2 system of this planet is either sheer stubborness or sheer stupidity. As has been repeatedly pointed out, time after time, thread after thread after thread, posting the unsupported conclusions of others is NOT proof. You can repeat that delusion all you want....only a fool would call what is a physical reality "unsupported". And I will repeat one more time, for you are obviously without the ability to learn quickly, "logical conclusions" are NOT facts!! Logic is a process by which one can arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence. You can repeat your convoluted logic until doomsday, because only a complete fool would try to foister the notion that the systematic removal/damage of what exchanges CO2 to oxygen has little to no effect on the environment...only a willfully ignorant dupe would pretend that adding urbanization and industrial pollutants on all levels to this would have little to no effect on the environment. Yeah, let's just throw reality and common sense out the window because it doesn't fit in to the myopic equations that support....what? Defense of business as usual? The moronic "stop the liberals" mentality? Give me a fucking break!

LEARN what the fucking scientific method is, Oh, you mean the scientific methods that ONLY support one aspect of the problem? Yeah, you presented that already, genius. And YOU ignored or denied any other scientific method that produced a different result when taken into full concept. and where "logical conclusions" fall in that process, and MAYBE you can actually discuss the issue from a level beyond what your political masters tell you to think.

See above responses.

No where have I denied that industrial pollution is harming the ecosystems. EXCEPT with respect to global warming, where the actual scientific evidence does not support that "logical conclusion." There is no scientific evidence that CO2 exchange rates are diminished. There is no scientific evidence that CO2, CH4, nor man made pollutants are contributing to an unprecedented greenhouse effect.

We've already done this dance, as the chronological posts show....and the logical conclusions just didn't jibe with your beliefs....so like all neocon dupes, you just keep repeating yourself six ways to Sunday..hoping with each new vehemence you'll magically make all contrary facts disappear. Grow up....it won't happen on a printed medium.

As for simply repeating myself, That's all you can do, genius....that and deny/ignore any contrary facts. No big surprise. what the fuck are you doing? Just taking yet another willfully ignorant neocon buffoon with an axe to grind against the perceived "liberal threat"...and proving that when properly challenged you just parrot yourself to the point of insipidness. I gave you links to actual scientific studies which support what I have been saying. And I gave you likewise....you just ignore them, nor do you discuss them in the proper context. You give me links to articles in popular (ie: written for laymen) magazines of science about a new method confirming (a fact never denied) that CO2, CH4 and manmade pollutants have increased over the past two decades. I ask you where the evidence is for the conclusions that these measured increases are, in actuality, responsible for global warming. You give me "logic". You're a liar....you again keep taking things out of context to try and falsley portray what I was responding to and why. The recorded chronology of the posts are still there, you jackass. So lying about what happened is pointless. I detest liars, because you are NOT that fucking stupid that you don't comprehend what you read. Coward.

Come back when you can comprehend the difference between logic and scientifically derived evidence. How about producing an actual scientific STUDY that shows CO2, CH4, or CFCs are actually found in high enough contributions to have a greenhouse effect attributed to them. I gave you TWO studies showing the exact opposite. So shove you "logic" where it belongs. If you cannot produce genuine science, then it is apparent all you have is what your political masters gave you in your breakfast cereal.

There you have it folks......when you follow the chronology, you know this jackass is deliberately trying to distort responses....what was being responsed to and why. Now he does what all failed neocon debators do...establishes a distortion, repeats it ad nauseum and then bases a new challenged based on that lie...pretending that NOW the burden of proof is to prove the new lie based challenge wrong.

This asshole keeps on about political masters....yet he has yet to explain how following the status quo of deforestation, non-regulation of industrial emissions and all I've mentioned before is beneficial to the planet and it's inhabitants. His denial that what is physically happening has direct effect on the environment (yes stupid, atmosphere is part of the environment) is absurd. What is he defending? The profit motive of industry? The projected profit of all industry and business that would be devoted to compesating for problems that occur as global warming causes more damage to the eco-system. Or does the fool actually know what he's "against", as I've inquired above? Good luck with anyone trying to get the truth out of him/her on that one.