USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Now, now; NoIQ.
You keep acting like that and your Chinese masters are going to make you take a "re-education" course.
You know how long it took you to recover, the last time that happened.
APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Now, now; NoIQ.
You keep acting like that and your Chinese masters are going to make you take a "re-education" course.
You know how long it took you to recover, the last time that happened.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
OMG, you didn't even really read through everything I've linked....you're just scanning for something you can readily dismiss because of ideology, NOT FACTS and LOGIC. No surprise.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As the post shows in all our exchanges, you once again live up to your screen name. Carry on.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
OMG. That would mean being sent to Phoenix!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I wasn't aware that China had an organization in Phoenix, that helped those who are released from their "re-education" camps!!
Litmus
Verified User
That post proves nothing, intellectual hack.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I wasn't aware that China had an organization in Phoenix, that helped those who are released from their "re-education" camps!!
There are many things of which you are unaware. But next time you order a Chinese take-away do not order number [censored] if you value you life!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Why would you assume I order Chines take-away??
Does this mean I can order a Chinese to take you away??
Litmus
Verified User
Why would you assume I order Chines take-away??
Does this mean I can order a Chinese to take you away??
Ancient Chinese secret?
No. (calgon)
Calgon take me way from western imperialism where i have been conscripted to run a goddamn laundromat.
LOL
Idiot!. Plants love CO2 and they are starved for it right now, historically speaking.
Do a google search on stomata response to CO2 increase.
LOL why do you think greenhouse growers elevate CO2 concentration in their growing environments?
LOL you are uninformed.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry to break it to you, bunky....but the content of your posts and your inability to actually have a rational debate more than solidifies the apt screen name you've chosen for yourself. Don't get pissed at me for seeing the obvious, you've done it to yourself! Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I love it when you neocon parrots pat yourselves on the back for your myopic viewpoints of the world and the knowledge it holds. As I show above, once you unhinge your mind from the pro-industrial mantras of "those lib'rals are just trying to rip you off", you get the picture. Or in your case, you might not. Whatever. Laugh, clown, laugh.
Litmus
Verified User
Sorry to break it to you, bunky....but the content of your posts and your inability to actually have a rational debate more than solidifies the apt screen name you've chosen for yourself. Don't get pissed at me for seeing the obvious, you've done it to yourself! Carry on.
Contrarily. Tinfoil keeps pounding you with logic and facts and you think you're smokescreening it all with longwinded idiocy and distraction.
We all see right through you and your circus routine.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Good Luck
New member
Isn't it amazing how persistently ignorance clings to the modern liberal mind?
No one is denying that human activity releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We release a couple million metric tons of CO2 annually in the U.S. alone through the use of fossil fuels.
Of course the whole deforestation thing has been dealt with. Humans growing modified crop plants, which yields more photosynthetic activity per acre than undefiled rain forests, more than compensates for the trees cut down. It's a wash as far as the carbon cycle is concerned. (Though there are several other problems caused by deforestation - but that's a topic for a different thread.)
But the fact that deforestation does not decrease activity in the carbon cycle does not diminish the fact that humans put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through other activities.
The problem with AGW theory is it DOES NOT MATTER. We could quadruple the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere and there still would not be enough increase to cause the atmosphere to hold in more heat. The concentrations are TOO LOW to have a differentiated greenhouse effect from the preindustrial levels of CO2. I have linked the scientific study that PROVES CO2 forcing cannot possibly be a factor in rising global temperatures. Therefore, being concerned over human sources of CO2 is barking up the wrong tree. Humans have contributed to the observed increase in CO2 levels. But the scientific evidence shows that human sources of CO2, CH4, and CFCs have nothing to do with increased temperatures.
No one is denying that human activity releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We release a couple million metric tons of CO2 annually in the U.S. alone through the use of fossil fuels.
Of course the whole deforestation thing has been dealt with. Humans growing modified crop plants, which yields more photosynthetic activity per acre than undefiled rain forests, more than compensates for the trees cut down. It's a wash as far as the carbon cycle is concerned. (Though there are several other problems caused by deforestation - but that's a topic for a different thread.)
But the fact that deforestation does not decrease activity in the carbon cycle does not diminish the fact that humans put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through other activities.
The problem with AGW theory is it DOES NOT MATTER. We could quadruple the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere and there still would not be enough increase to cause the atmosphere to hold in more heat. The concentrations are TOO LOW to have a differentiated greenhouse effect from the preindustrial levels of CO2. I have linked the scientific study that PROVES CO2 forcing cannot possibly be a factor in rising global temperatures. Therefore, being concerned over human sources of CO2 is barking up the wrong tree. Humans have contributed to the observed increase in CO2 levels. But the scientific evidence shows that human sources of CO2, CH4, and CFCs have nothing to do with increased temperatures.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Although I tend towards your sceptical analysis, I must point out that the amount of man-made CO2 produced by the US is around 5.8 million tonnes and not 2 million tonnes as you stated. I am also not convinced that removal of rain forests at the present rate is balanced by the planting of more crops. For instance, in Brazil much of the forest is cleared for human habitation, mining and industry and not for agriculture.
I don't think you can trust SOME climate scientists... and the proof of their fraud has been uncovered.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Just google global warming and you'll find the news of the emails confirming collusion to deny sceptical viewpoints and shape data to fit theory.
Those of you warmers who claim to be scientific sure are quiet! AS quiet as the sun.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Just google global warming and you'll find the news of the emails confirming collusion to deny sceptical viewpoints and shape data to fit theory.
Those of you warmers who claim to be scientific sure are quiet! AS quiet as the sun.
From an email recently exposed
Mike Mann talks about how to destroy the reputation of "Climatic Research", a journal:
"It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike"
Mike Mann talks about how to destroy the reputation of "Climatic Research", a journal:
"It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike"
Kevin Trenberth explains how to respond to skeptics:
"but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do."
LOL awesome
"but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do."
LOL awesome
Tom Wigley warns Mann:
"A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all."
Another!! hahah
"A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all."
Another!! hahah