Global warming?

[Banditbandit]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/7c/07/1d7c07cfc50c3764fcf5a7ac9e386a43.jpg

[awa355]

Its pretty obvious what causes Global Warming.

"HE" has too much spare time. :innocent:

[carbonhed]

From the department of "settled science" and "oh fuck it's worse than we thought!!!!!!!!!"

Antarctica is actually gaining ice mass.

WTF?

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[yokel]

http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/global.jpg

[yokel]

Fire the denier!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XfpMXz2bQuw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[SPman]

From the department of "settled science" and "oh fuck it's worse than we thought!!!!!!!!!"

Antarctica is actually gaining ice mass.

WTF?

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Amazing what you can get with 8 y.o. data that bears not much relevance to recent data

As a counter.....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/melting-ice-in-west-antarctica-could-raise-seas-by-3m-warns-study?CMP=ema_632

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/2/experts-dispute-nasa-antarctic-ice-gain-study.html (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/melting-ice-in-west-antarctica-could-raise-seas-by-3m-warns-study?CMP=ema_632)

[carbonhed]

Amazing what you can get with 8 y.o. data that bears not much relevance to recent data

As a counter.....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/melting-ice-in-west-antarctica-could-raise-seas-by-3m-warns-study?CMP=ema_632

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/2/experts-dispute-nasa-antarctic-ice-gain-study.html (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/melting-ice-in-west-antarctica-could-raise-seas-by-3m-warns-study?CMP=ema_632)


Talking shit again dude.

It's NASA's latest study and supercedes their previous modelling.

Read the Al Jazeera article. It doesn't supprt your contention.

ETA. Didn't notice this bit from the Al Jazeera article at first...

“Please don’t publicize this study,” said Theodore A. Scambos, a senior research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center, a polar research center at the University of Colorado at Boulder."

That would be precisely the attitude that's reduced climate science to a laughing stock. What part of the scientific method does that fall under you fucking tosspot.

[SPman]

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Hint: Losing.
A new study just published in the Journal of Glaciology is causing some buzz in climate circles, because it appears to claim that Antarctica—long thought to be losing ice at extremely alarming rates—is actually gaining ice.
However, note the word appears. The reality is more complicated, and in the end the important aspect of this is that the study only talks about part of Antarctica, and only used data up to 2008. Both of these points are critical.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/b<wbr>ad_astronomy/2015/11/03/anta<wbr>rctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html)
and more here
http://blog.hotwhopper.c<wbr>om/2015/11/antarctic-ice-gro<wbr>wing-or-shrinking-nasa.html (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/antarctic-ice-growing-or-shrinking-nasa.html)


................................


precisely the attitude that's reduced climate science to a laughing stock. ...amongst conservative dickheads whom fewer and fewer people give much credence to......

[carbonhed]

................................

...amongst conservative dickheads whom fewer and fewer people give much credence to......

Really? You'd defend that?

:lol:

[carbonhed]

And in absolutely appalling news today... Pacific Atolls are increasing in size in response to rising sea levels.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27639-small-atoll-islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/

Things to avoid... don't kill your reef with pollution... aaand don't mine it for building materials.

[SPman]

Really? You'd defend that?

:lol:

Yes.


It's NASA's latest study and supercedes their previous modelling.................

Current studies are showing that the rate of change of glacier melt is a major concern, in West Antarctica in particular.
We confirm previous reports of West Antarctic warming, in annual average and in austral spring and winter, but find substantially larger temperature increases. In contrast to previous studies, we report statistically significant warming during austral summer, particularly in December–January, the peak of the melting season.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/j<wbr>ournal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html

(http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html)

The floating ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic Ice Sheet restrain the grounded ice-sheet flow. Thinning of an ice shelf reduces this effect, leading to an increase in ice discharge to the ocean. Using 18 years of continuous satellite radar altimeter observations, we have computed decadal-scale changes in ice-shelf thickness around the Antarctic continent. Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 cubic kilometers per year for 1994–2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 cubic kilometers per year for 2003–2012. West Antarctic losses increased by ~70% in the past decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased. In the Amundsen and Bellingshausen regions, some ice shelves have lost up to 18% of their thickness in less than two decades.

http://blogs.discovermagazin<wbr>e.com/imageo/2015/03/27/anta<wbr>rctic-ice-shelves-thinning-rapidly/#.Vj2r-5f-XaU

(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/03/27/antarctic-ice-shelves-thinning-rapidly/#.Vj2r-5f-XaU)

Researchers at Princeton University have confirmed accelerating rates of loss in the Antarctic ice sheet. If this continues, significant rises in sea level are predicted.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasa<wbr>rs.com/new-method-weighing-a<wbr>ntarctic-ice-confirms-rapid-melting/

(http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/new-method-weighing-antarctic-ice-confirms-rapid-melting/)

[yokel]

Yes.

................

Current studies are showing that the rate of change of glacier melt is a major concern, in West Antarctica in particular.
We confirm previous reports of West Antarctic warming, in annual average and in austral spring and winter, but find substantially larger temperature increases. In contrast to previous studies, we report statistically significant warming during austral summer, particularly in December–January, the peak of the melting season.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/j<wbr>ournal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html

(http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html)

The floating ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic Ice Sheet restrain the grounded ice-sheet flow. Thinning of an ice shelf reduces this effect, leading to an increase in ice discharge to the ocean. Using 18 years of continuous satellite radar altimeter observations, we have computed decadal-scale changes in ice-shelf thickness around the Antarctic continent. Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 cubic kilometers per year for 1994–2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 cubic kilometers per year for 2003–2012. West Antarctic losses increased by ~70% in the past decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased. In the Amundsen and Bellingshausen regions, some ice shelves have lost up to 18% of their thickness in less than two decades.

http://blogs.discovermagazin<wbr>e.com/imageo/2015/03/27/anta<wbr>rctic-ice-shelves-thinning-rapidly/#.Vj2r-5f-XaU

(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/03/27/antarctic-ice-shelves-thinning-rapidly/#.Vj2r-5f-XaU)

Researchers at Princeton University have confirmed accelerating rates of loss in the Antarctic ice sheet. If this continues, significant rises in sea level are predicted.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasa<wbr>rs.com/new-method-weighing-a<wbr>ntarctic-ice-confirms-rapid-melting/

(http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/new-method-weighing-antarctic-ice-confirms-rapid-melting/)

There is nothing wrong with the climate, and CO2 does nothing.
now If I'm going to believe in man made climate change then they need to give another reason other than CO2 emissions.

The name 'climate change' is fucking retarded, it does not point to anything specific. and what % of this climate change is man made? 0.1% or 99%??

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3QmkHr0W5Vk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[SPman]

There is nothing wrong with the climate, and CO2 does nothing.
now If I'm going to believe in man made climate change then they need to give another reason other than CO2 emissions.
You were obviously wanking during physics 101 classes.........


..... and what % of this climate change is man made? 0.1% or 99%??well...the observable fact that the planet is warming, when, if left to natural causes it should, currently, be cooling, would tend to indicate that human induced increase of CO2 levels by 45% from a century ago may just have a part to play........

[James Deuce]

in other words it's bullshit science,
they will never get the science settled because there is no control eg another planet earth

Grade: Not Achieved. Does not understand irony, sarcasm or the scientific method.

[James Deuce]

You were obviously wanking during physics 101 classes.........

well...the observable fact that the planet is warming, when, if left to natural causes it should, currently, be cooling, would tend to indicate that human induced increase of CO2 levels by 45% from a century ago may just have a part to play........
To say nothing of the acidification of the oceans or the reduction in the large animal poop cycle (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151026172050.htm) which plays a huge part in spreading nutrients, to just 8% on land and 5% in the sea when compared to 15,000 years ago. Because we've extinctified lots of large animal species or reduced them to almost unsustainable levels. So where people turn up, bad things happen.

[yokel]

You were obviously wanking during physics 101 classes.........

well...the observable fact that the planet is warming, when, if left to natural causes it should, currently, be cooling, would tend to indicate that human induced increase of CO2 levels by 45% from a century ago may just have a part to play........

So we've apparently increased the CO2 to a whopping 0.039%. nice try child.
have a guess as to what is the most abundant greenhouse gas?

[yokel]

To say nothing of the acidification of the oceans or the reduction in the large animal poop cycle (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151026172050.htm) which plays a huge part in spreading nutrients, to just 8% on land and 5% in the sea when compared to 15,000 years ago. Because we've extinctified lots of large animal species or reduced them to almost unsustainable levels. So where people turn up, bad things happen.

when the ocean heats up it releases CO2 and becomes less acidic, so there's a slight problem with your "ocean acidification" chicken little story.

the only thing that can heat up the oceans is the sun, not the climate.

[FJRider]

when the ocean heats up it releases CO2 and becomes less acidic, so there's a slight problem with your "ocean acidification" chicken little story.



Thousands of Tonne's of fertilizers containing ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, or sulfur-coated urea (to name but a few acidic fertilizers) ... are flushed into the worlds oceans each year.


Do you think THAT will have NO effect on the "Ocean's Acidity" .... ??? :brick:

[yokel]

Thousands of Tonne's of fertilizers containing ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, or sulfur-coated urea (to name but a few acidic fertilizers) ... are flushed into the worlds oceans each year.


Do you think THAT will have NO effect on the "Ocean's Acidity" .... ??? :brick:

thats not what the science buffoons are saying, they claim "ocean acidification" comes from extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

Me personally thinks it's from fukushima,
the 'warm blob' in the pacific, that's fuku baby.
with all the phytoplankton dying off the sun's rays can now cock the oceans.

[James Deuce]

when the ocean heats up it releases CO2 and becomes less acidic, so there's a slight problem with your "ocean acidification" chicken little story.

the only thing that can heat up the oceans is the sun, not the climate.

Annotated, referenced proof please. You won't find any so I won't hold my breath.

I'd work harder on refuting your statement, but like all science deniers your offhand, demi-science quips take hours to to assemble a tight response to in order to present a factual response. It's not worth the effort as you've exercised a technique that amounts to the written equivalent of a Gish Gallop for years now. Every time someone puts any work in to try and prevent your nonsense being absorbed by people who have no exposure to science and little understanding of scientific method you escalate the level of garbage response to new heights. None of it supported, or indeed supportable by anyone with a reputable association to whatever branch of science you're throwing under the bus today.

The only response that may help those who don't get scientific method is a short quip from comedian Dara O'Brien who also has a degree in Cosmology, “Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

[carbonhed]

The ocean isn't acidic and it will never become acidic.

And that's just science kids.

[schrodingers cat]

The ocean isn't acidic and it will never become acidic.

And that's just science kids.

Ph of 7.6 to 8.4...

Full of salt...

Hmmmmmmm

[Katman]

Ph of 7.6 to 8.4...

Full of salt...

Hmmmmmmm

Reading this thread has hardened my arteries.

[carbonhed]

Reading this thread has hardened my arteries.

Result!



Plus ten other characters.

[James Deuce]

The ocean isn't acidic and it will never become acidic.

And that's just science kids.

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

[oldrider]

Simply posted this link because it was there and thread subject related: http://drsircus.com/world-news/john-kerry-master-of-propaganda/?utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=53abc083f8-Article_324_11_10_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-53abc083f8-9531509

[SPman]

Annotated, referenced proof please. You won't find any so I won't hold my breath.

I'd work harder on refuting your statement, but like all science deniers your offhand, demi-science quips take hours to to assemble a tight response to in order to present a factual response. It's not worth the effort as you've exercised a technique that amounts to the written equivalent of a Gish Gallop for years now. Every time someone puts any work in to try and prevent your nonsense being absorbed by people who have no exposure to science and little understanding of scientific method you escalate the level of garbage response to new heights. None of it supported, or indeed supportable by anyone with a reputable association to whatever branch of science you're throwing under the bus today.

The only response that may help those who don't get scientific method is a short quip from comedian Dara O'Brien who also has a degree in Cosmology, “Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

Wot he said!

You can't teach the unteachable!

[SPman]

when the ocean heats up it releases CO2 and becomes less acidic, so there's a slight problem with your "ocean acidification" chicken little story.

the only thing that can heat up the oceans is the sun, not the climate. To a very small degree, yes, but it doesn't become less acidic thereby - Carbonic acid doesn't evaporate back into the air, and at that point it's releasing it's CO2 into an already increasing CO2 environment....catch 22. Oceanic acidification is fact.
Climate heats the ocean using the sun to do so - that being the main heating source for the planet, so, pedantically speaking, you are right.

Here's a graph of Temperature, CO2 levels, Sea levels, over the last 450,000 yrs. Notice how they all tend to follow each other.
Now....look at the end of the CO2 graph as it races past 400 ppm!
Implications on temps and sea level rise? (without the bullshit that CO2 doesn't force temperatures - unless you've changed the laws of physics and observability - it does, no argument, end of story! And it has been established that CO2 increases happen before temperature rises in nearly all cases, not after.)
...................................


http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED_zpsk5gtpm z8.jpg (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED_zpsk5gtpm z8.jpg.html)

[Akzle]

the world will be better when all the people are dead.

[Woodman]

the world will be better when all the people are dead.

Never a truer word spoke. There are too many humans, we need daily twin towers type events to thin the population down a bit.

[oldrider]

the world will be better when all the people are dead.

What you think about generally happens - careful what you wish for - people is what we are! - :scratch: Last time I looked! :whistle:

[Akzle]

What you think about generally happens - careful what you wish for - people is what we are! - :scratch: Last time I looked! :whistle:

dunno. Not many on here would be quick to call me a people...

I'm prayin for tidal waves...

[Akzle]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FYRldZsVO9I

[Akzle]

any fucken time. Any fuken day... See you drown...

[oldrider]

any fucken time. Any fuken day... See you drown...

Back in the day - there were these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx47qrH1GRs the real people test - if you tasted good you be gone! :yeah:

[Lightbulb]

To a very small degree, yes, but it doesn't become less acidic thereby - Carbonic acid doesn't evaporate back into the air, and at that point it's releasing it's CO2 into an already increasing CO2 environment....catch 22. Oceanic acidification is fact.
Climate heats the ocean using the sun to do so - that being the main heating source for the planet, so, pedantically speaking, you are right.

Here's a graph of Temperature, CO2 levels, Sea levels, over the last 450,000 yrs. Notice how they all tend to follow each other.
Now....look at the end of the CO2 graph as it races past 400 ppm!
Implications on temps and sea level rise? (without the bullshit that CO2 doesn't force temperatures - unless you've changed the laws of physics and observability - it does, no argument, end of story! And it has been established that CO2 increases happen before temperature rises in nearly all cases, not after.)
...................................


http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED_zpsk5gtpm z8.jpg (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED_zpsk5gtpm z8.jpg.html)


If you go back far enough, you will find co2 levels more than 10X what we have now. It needed to be for the the prolific plant growth required to feed the dinosaurs. Despite the apparent current seemingly high co2 value, (which it is not really) green houses, introduce more co2 to increase the growth rate of produce. It must be economical for them to be doing it otherwise they would not be. Chemical pollution is our real threat to ourselves and we are too dumb to see it as a collective. Climate change is real, happens every year, I call it seasons. winter is cold and summer is hot. They BS on about small temp changes, yet the swing from summer to winter is over 30 deg C if not more in other places. All the plant life and animals have not died yet. But don't worry about the man made crap chemicals we are creating and inventing and then being forced to consume. That is the real issue.
Butter from cows id bad for you, here have some margarine, one chemical chain away from being plastic. Insects won't eat it, but it is better for your health, the same BS as global warming or any other scam to make money from decent honest hard working people.
Neil

[yokel]

To a very small degree, yes, but it doesn't become less acidic thereby - Carbonic acid doesn't evaporate back into the air, and at that point it's releasing it's CO2 into an already increasing CO2 environment....catch 22. Oceanic acidification is fact.
Climate heats the ocean using the sun to do so - that being the main heating source for the planet, so, pedantically speaking, you are right.

Here's a graph of Temperature, CO2 levels, Sea levels, over the last 450,000 yrs. Notice how they all tend to follow each other.
Now....look at the end of the CO2 graph as it races past 400 ppm!
Implications on temps and sea level rise? (without the bullshit that CO2 doesn't force temperatures - unless you've changed the laws of physics and observability - it does, no argument, end of story! And it has been established that CO2 increases happen before temperature rises in nearly all cases, not after.)
...................................



what you believe to be established is in fact disestablished.
also the most abundant green house gas is water vapour, so what are we going to about water vapour emissions??

the theory behind the effects of CO2 is wrong because of clouds, good old clouds.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hGZKMbDlnso" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[carbonhed]

And it has been established that CO2 increases happen before temperature rises in nearly all cases, not after.


No they don't. CO2 increases lag temperature rises.

[puddytat]

I better learn to swim.

[Woodman]

This thread is the reason why the human race is doomed.

[oldrider]

This thread is the reason why the human race is doomed.

OK then seize the moment - delete this thread and save mankind! - :wait:

[Katman]

OK then seize the moment - delete this thread and save mankind! - :wait:

I wonder if bogan is ready to suck moderator cock again yet?

(He might be able to get it as far as PD at least).

[bogan]

I wonder if bogan is ready to suck moderator cock again yet?

(He might be able to get it as far as PD at least).

Ironically, it's effort like yours that will get it there...















...again.

So I'd just get to suck it for fun.

[Katman]

So I'd just get to suck it for fun.

Well you've always made me laugh.

[SPman]

No they don't. CO2 increases lag temperature rises.
Keep up with the reputable scientific research matey - not the pseudoscience and disinformation blogs that keep repeating variations of all the same discredited bullshit over and over and over, as if repeating it often enough, makes it true



Climate change is real, happens every year, I call it seasonsThat's weather - not climate

green houses, introduce more co2 to increase the growth rate of produce. It must be economical for them to be doing it otherwise they would not be. Greenhouses have extra water and nutrients to make up for the increased metabolic rates......http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

also the most abundant green house gas is water vapour, so what are we going to about water vapour emissions

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.
How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm).
The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm). A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

All energy that arrives from the sun is eventually radiated back out to space. The question is at what temperature does the Earth need to be before energy out equals energy in?
If the Earth were to suddenly cool (let's say for a magical reason, hypothetically), the Earth would for a time absorb more energy than it outputs, until it reaches a certain higher temperature at which point the Earth would stop warming and energy in would equal energy out. This is Earth's Energy balance.

If there were no greenhouse gases at all (including H20) that point of energy balance would be a much cooler Earth that the one we know now (about 33 degrees cooler on average). This is because the greenhouse effect causes the Earth to retain more heat that it would otherwise.
It thus follows that if there are more greenhouse gases the Earth's new stable point with respect to temperature (energy balance) would be higher than it is now, and the Earth would start to warm until it reaches a new equilibrium. And this is exactly what is happening now.

http://earthobservatory.nasa<wbr>.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php)



So we've apparently increased the CO2 to a whopping 0.039%. nice try child
and your point is.....? We'll drop .5 gm of cyanide into your next Macdonalds thickshake, shall we - it's such a small amount......can't harm you much..........

[bogan]

To say nothing of the acidification of the oceans or the reduction in the large animal poop cycle (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151026172050.htm) which plays a huge part in spreading nutrients, to just 8% on land and 5% in the sea when compared to 15,000 years ago. Because we've extinctified lots of large animal species or reduced them to almost unsustainable levels. So where people turn up, bad things happen.

Yeh, but a counterpoint on the issue of nutrient spreading.

Chemtrails! :bleh:

It's almost like things change over time. Lets not confuse change, with doom eh!

[carbonhed]

Keep up with the reputable scientific research matey - not the pseudoscience and disinformation blogs that keep repeating variations of all the same discredited bullshit over and over and over, as if repeating it often enough, makes it true


Link?

I'd be surprised if you have one.

[puddytat]

I'd bee even more surprised if you had one.....

[yokel]

and your point is.....? We'll drop .5 gm of cyanide into your next Macdonalds thickshake, shall we - it's such a small amount......can't harm you much..........

You are a fucking moron.

Science right now is a joke.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SOXeTDjx8vg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[carbonhed]

I'd bee even more surprised if you had one.....

Meh... if it's this one from April 2012 that lasted about a week before it was torn to shreds... I think I probably do.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

[SPman]

Link?

I'd be surprised if you have one.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://sciencenode.org/feature/carbon-dioxide-came-ice-age-melt.php (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8nrvrkVBt24" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="347" width="570"></iframe>


Meh... if it's this one from April 2012 that lasted about a week before it was torn to shreds... I think I probably do. Torn to shreds by Piers Corbyn? Who has as much credibility in the science world as you do? His latest "revelation" on how CO2 is not a greenhouse forcing gas, relies on turning the laws of physics on it's head! It's going down a treat in the pseudo-science blogs as well.

[SPman]

You are a fucking moron.

Science right now is a joke.



And to what do you owe this "startling" revelation...............couldn't hack science at school???????

The joke is people saying "Science right now is a joke"

[carbonhed]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://sciencenode.org/feature/carbon-dioxide-came-ice-age-melt.php (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)


Torn to shreds by Piers Corbyn? Who has as much credibility in the science world as you do? His latest "revelation" on how CO2 is not a greenhouse forcing gas, relies on turning the laws of physics on it's head! It's going down a treat in the pseudo-science blogs as well.

Well that's awesome.

The links are the same and they all prove that CO2 lags temperature increase in the historical record... was that what you were really trying to show?

[mashman]

"the International Council for Science announced Thursday the addition of a “Seek Funding” step to the scientific method." (http://www.theonion.com/article/seek-funding-step-added-scientific-method-51837)

[SPman]

I'm sure this is a lot of people's opinion.......

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/up6yu_zpssg6ppohl.jpg

[yokel]

I'm sure this is a lot of people's opinion.......

[

Yes you're quite right, the climate summit has very little to do with the actual climate.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IZf0YOhUmtQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[yokel]

Should the Green party change their name to the Red party?

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Green-is-the-new-Red-Agenda-21.jpg

[puddytat]

Cool....we've obviously got you worried.