Watch: Speaking at the White House, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey says climate change is a “crusade which we have no alternative but to win.”
Stay in the Know
Sign up to get updates.
Watch: Speaking at the White House, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey says climate change is a “crusade which we have no alternative but to win.”
Sign up to get updates.
401 Responses
Wonder what the Muslim folks think about Senator Markey’s Crusade
Translation: “We must win the climate crusade to insure total control, monetary and otherwise, over the population.”
Bingo! You nailed it!!!
i am so sorry/i live in Mass/never voted Demooocrap
i have stopped e-mailing them because i always get the same response//thanks for contacting but we are going to do what we want??
Translation: You are a climate change denier.
Humor him, he thinks that a bad thing. Let him pay the taxes and let’s file for some goofy grants.
If you (a self-confessed climate change denier) did not have double standards, you would have no standards at all. How greedy Lessez-Faire Capitalist of you!
Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in, Adrian?
You are so stupid you believe not believing BS is a crime! Give us a break! You are an idiot.
Adrian, we covered this already. Your insults don’t work on me. You’re insulting me because your reasoning failed you. Why do you persist to shos me how your reasoning failed you?
Well, I suppose if you did not have double standards you would have no standards at all.
See above^
SOS, appeal to assertion again!
Liar denier Adrian. Still doing big oil?
“Big oil” has spent $30 million flying scientists, like me, around to make speeches while the Fed have spent $550 billion in grants promoting this BS for the purpose of passing new taxes building bigger bureaus. It is just that simple.
You’re not a scientist. You’re a troll.
We all know that big oil hires crank theorists like you to spead pseudo science. I find it disgusting that you’re proud of that.
“We all know?” Why is it liberals say “We all know…” and “Everyone knows…” when neither statement is possibly true. You have not dealt with any of the facts I have listed above, but ducked everything now twice. You are a dupe who will pay heavily for your ignorance when the likes of Barack Obama get the power taxing carbon will give them and when they do my patents and those will get will make me very rich as I understand all of this far better than you can ever imagine. See “http://CO2Au.blogspot.com”
Oh Adrian. You’re an expert on appeal to assertion. Sadly, your argumentby assertion is no argument at all.
You provided no facts, no evidence. Why run away from the fact that you’re not a scientist. Your a paid crank theorist, paid by big oil to lie.
And yes, we all know that. You’re self confessed liar denier.
I debunked your canards already. You are yet to respond to that. Remember, Michael Mann was innocent, multiple inquiries found that, I shared the findings with you. Yet you still offer your same boring canard. Don’t your have any new ones? You claim no greenhouse effect or greenhouse gasses exist, but quote someone saying Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” . Doh. You can’t even get your own crank theories consistent.
You have no say in scientific knowledge. We both know that you can’t change the science. You don’t even try, you lie about it to streal the ignorant’s vote. That way you get political policy wrapped in your favour. That’s your game. You’re a thief.
You’re in denial of ACC because of your greed and love of crank theories.
And being paid by big oil to spread your crank theories is the evidence. But you’re an idiot, because you insult me thinking that would convert me to your cult. How stupid of you, Adrian.
Tell me about your mom. What are thd first three words that come to mind when you think of her?
I also want to know if there is a crank theory that you don’t believe in, list them.
Now you are getting really ugly and personally insulting. Can’t you differentiate personal matters from theoretical issues? You have ruined your image here with your foul keyboard work.
You need to learn how to play the ball and not the man, denier Adrian.
Your post consists of nothing but diversion and libel.
Here is my post again, read it and answer my Questions. Defebx your illegitimate position.
Oh Adrian. You’re an expert on appeal to assertion. Sadly, your argument by assertion is no argument at all.
You provided no facts, no evidence. Why run away from the fact that you’re not a scientist? You’re a paid crank theorist, paid by big oil to lie.
And yes, we all know that. You’re self confessed liar denier.
I debunked your canards already. You are yet to respond to that. Remember, Michael Mann was innocent, multiple inquiries found that, I shared the findings with you. Yet you still offer your same boring canard. Don’t you have any new ones? Still listing pseudo scientific websites, oh dear. You claim that no greenhouse effect or greenhouse gasses exist, but quote someone saying Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” . Doh. You can’t even get your own crank theories consistent.
You have no say in scientific knowledge. We both know that you can’t change the science. You don’t even try, you lie about it to steal the ignorant’s vote. That way you get political policy wrapped in your favour. That’s your game. You’re a thief.
You’re in denial of ACC because of your greed and love of crank theories.
And being paid by big oil to spread your crank theories is the evidence. But you’re an idiot, because you insult me thinking that would convert me to your cult. How stupid of you, Adrian.
175+ countries signed up to the Paris Agreement. You lost Adrian troll. It’s over.
Tell me about your mom. What are the first three words that come to mind when you think of her?
I also want to know if there is a crank theory that you don’t believe in, list them.
You’re not a scientist. Keep on saying that too yourself.
You are truly delusional, John. You know nothing about me. Tell that to the people that granted my degree or the people that published my work which you can document at http://worldcat.org which only has 3/4 of it. Or tell that to the US Patent and Trademark Office or any of my many publishers, award givers, authorities for whom I edited papers,
You’re still not a scientist. Nor are you a climate change scientist. You’re a fraud and a crank theorist.
You have no credentials (qualifications, publications, citations, affiliations) in ir with climate change science. None. You’re a paid big oil shill, paid to spread lies.
Oh Adrian. You’re an expert on appeal to assertion. Sadly, your argument by assertion is no argument at all.
You provided no facts, no evidence. Why run away from the fact that you’re not a scientist? You’re a paid crank theorist, paid by big oil to lie.
And yes, we all know that. You’re self confessed liar denier.
I debunked your canards already. You are yet to respond to that. Remember, Michael Mann was innocent, multiple inquiries found that, I shared the findings with you. Yet you still offer your same boring canard. Don’t you have any new ones? Still listing pseudo scientific websites, oh dear. You claim that no greenhouse effect or greenhouse gasses exist, but quote someone saying Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” . Doh. You can’t even get your own crank theories consistent.
You have no say in scientific knowledge. We both know that you can’t change the science. You don’t even try, you lie about it to steal the ignorant’s vote. That way you get political policy wrapped in your favour. That’s your game. You’re a thief.
You’re in denial of ACC because of your greed and love of crank theories.
And being paid by big oil to spread your crank theories is the evidence. But you’re an idiot, because you insult me thinking that would convert me to your cult. How stupid of you, Adrian.
175+ countries signed up to the Paris Agreement. You lost Adrian troll. It’s over.
Tell me about your mom. What are the first three words that come to mind when you think of her?
I also want to know if there is a crank theory that you don’t believe in, list them.
You’re projecting, Adrian. When will you apologise from your lies about Michael Mann?
Here is the email that started the Mann controversy. He was only absolved by a Faculty Senate that would have lost a lot of government grant money if they had censured and discredited him. Total corruptioh, Read the evidence:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the
last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept
for H land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH
combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C
cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK
We covered that already. M Mann was innocent! You need to apologise for your false accusations, not repeat them, liar Adrian.
Do you think that repeating your lie would make it become the truth? By magic?
Can’t read? Do you not understand? This clearly documents Michael Mann’s “trick” and the corruption of the University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate who were only interested in keeping the Federal spigot open.
Appeal to asserion is no argument af all, liar denier Adrian.
You’re a troll, accusing people of the very thing that you’re guilty of.
Are you too stupid to get it?
You’re a drunk shill.
“Appeal to asserion?” What would you say if you could talk. You offer nothing of substance to the discussion. I produce evidence and explanation. CO2 is a “trace gas” as defined by physical science and that means “forget it.” It is just that simple.
Adrian, only idiots are in denial of the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases. That is taught in grade 3 science class, yet you don’t get it.
You produced no evidence. In fact, you have no idea what evidence is. It’s clear that you accept assertion without question and expect others to do the same. Shame on you.
As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.
Troll deniers such as you are a disgrace. Stay away from children.
Evidence? You want evidence already? Here it is:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
You posted that appeal to assertion already. It’s your standard crank theory. I debunked already, you never responded to that .
You’re a joke. 1
“Appeal to assertion?” These are facts and you
“debunked” nothing. I am trying to save the nation from all these evil elected people who will anything to tax everything and steal much of it.
I was right, you have no idea what evidence is.
Pathetic.
I don’t read pseudo science crank theory. Don’t you have something bettet to offer?
What makes you think that insulting me would convince me of your position?
You’re dumber than I thought.
So, insulting me will convince me of that your denialist position is legitimate?
Senator Malarky is still at it, I see.
Yes, still being elected by the people of Massachusetts 43 years later. Must be doing something right!
As I recall, not too long ago, a majority of the people in Massachusetts, unlike the majorities in every other state, voted against a very popular president.
I can’t see how this comment makes any sense at all. In the last 40 years, the people of Massachusetts have voted for the candidate who won the presidential election 7 out of 10 times. The other three times, they voted FOR Dukakis in 1988, who was a “native son”; and AGAINST 43 in 2000 and 2004, who was a very unpopular president! So it would appear that you have your history WRONG. Not a big surprise…
The “history” claimed for one recent year, is accurate. The best you could have done is claim that another cherry-picked number, namely 40 years, shows a different history. It is your conclusion about which presidents were popular (and when) which is dubious.
Still makes no sense. Why don’t you just drop the obfuscation and say what you mean. You haven’t specified when or who, so there’s no way to evaluate your claim except for its obvious falsity. Meanwhile, Senator Markey speaks for millions of people around the country as well as “the majority” in Massachusetts. If you are an AGW denier, double shame on you..
Which “claim” are you referring to? Shame… using the “denier” term, and no doubt a rabid liberal otherwise interested in legally requiring only PC language.
“As I recall, not too long ago, a majority of the people in Massachusetts, unlike the majorities in every other state, voted against a very popular president.”
That claim.
If you just make stuff up, you have to be prepared to be challenged as to the accuracy of your statements. You have disparaged Senator Markey for no obvious reason, and have made a claim that is devoid of truth. What is your problem?!
That claim is accurate, unless there’s been a recent “recount” by politicians. Your claim of “devoid of truth” is a lie. You can argue that it was a disparagement on Malarkey, or it’s cherry-picked by choosing some other (possibly cherry-picked) example.
However, you have not shown that it’s inaccurate. No wonder you like Malarkey !
You are a troll who cannot substantiate nebulous, fabricated claims. You still have failed to specify when or who you are referring to, so the claim is content-free, and thus false on its face. Are you a stone liar, or just a stone chicken? What “popular president” did a majority of people in Massachsetts vote against, unlike the majorities in “every other state”? Or do you not understand the question?
Well, it was close, both states’ names begin with “M”.
I witnessed this gasbag at a Senate hearing on climate fraud a few month back. It was literally unbelievable to hear him denigrate, with no evidence, the reputations of several skeptical scientists that were present. Senator Markey exists in the alternative liberal universe.
He is a total idiot.
and he doesn’t like me to have guns either what an ass wipe state
This man is a nutcase and the facts are very simple: CO2 is a trace gas and a poor absorber of IR, infrared energy from sunlight. Water vapor does 99.9% of all atmospheric heating, but they cannot control or tax that so they ignore it.
the facts are very simple
Facts are facts. You don;t get your own facts. Nonetheless, I’ll take the points on offer:
o Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect [30 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best.
D
I am right: You are wrong.
I’m wrong to collect points off of your long-refuted talking point? Says who?
Best,
D
Please copy the whole thing if you wish. Read my book “Vapor Tiger” from Amazon.com, $2.99 for Kindle and they will give you free reading program for your computer if you do not have a Kindle. Do the demo therein and you will know the truth.
Adrian,
What makes you think there is such a thing as prove / disprove in science?
What makes you think science declared anything 100% true?
Don’t you find it quite stifling that you have to beg people to read your pseudo science and pay for it ($2.99 for Kindle and $10 for your demo)?
We make all our filed scientific knowledge available to the public for free.
You need to read up and formulate your falsification is you want to falsify settled science:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That is earth is heating up is settled, it is a scientific fact – state of things as they are, or appear to be.
ACC is settled, it is a scientific theory – is a well-substantiated explanation of scientific facts and what causes it and have predictive power, in that we use to predict certain aspects of reality supported by falsifiable evidence.
Settled in science means scientific knowledge is filed and consensus emerged, not absolute certainty but “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”.
To say that science can never come to any conclusions, that we can never reasonably settle any question, is to give up on the entire scientific adventure of understanding the natural world. That is to reject all scientific knowledge that we have filed over the last ~500 years. If we can never know anything, what’s the point of investigating, of science? Saying that the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is not settled is arguing that scientific theories do not exist. Saying that the ‘earth is warming’ is not settled is arguing that scientific facts do not exist.
Claiming scientific knowledge do not exist is a message that is profoundly anti-science, and you should know that what Heartland and the NIPCC stand for is not some “alternative” science, but a private, alternative reality, born in delusion.
The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so. Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference. The group of NIPCC pseudoscientists examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports. NIPCC is not a scientific body, it is a group of people that are funded to write a NIPCC report for the pseudoscience Heartland Institution. Gee Adrian, do you even know what a scientific body is?
You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change). The stages are:
1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science and its method, and your greed
2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief
3) Acceptance: You always knew ACC was settled.
How do you get yourself to stage 2 anger? I think you are close, but only you can get there. I can’t do your homework for you.
If you knew how laughable your language is in this piece you would kill yourself. You are a total fraud and cannot even answer the simplest question or solve the simplest equilibrium equation in the book. That you imply you are with UC Berkeley is probably illegal so you had better be careful that you are not traceable as they protect their integrity quite vigorously and have no patience with people like you.
Adrian, you completely forgot to answer my questions. And it seems like you are contempt with that! Oh, the irony!
My pool of evidence widens while you can only be contrite to present your museum of mistakes. Your noose tightens to make place for your growing broken reason filter and vacuum of evidence. That’s no insult given that it’s true – you are demonstrating it!
Inane blather and invective without evidence has no basis in science, Adrian.
Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’
It’s over Adrian. It has been since your first post, your admission of denial, to me. Are you having a slow day?
You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change). The stages are:
1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science and its method, and your greed
2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief
3) Acceptance: You always knew ACC was settled.
How do you get yourself to stage 2 anger? I think you are close, very close, but only you can get there. I can’t do your homework for you.
Come on Adrian, get angry. Insult me, demonstrate that you have in denial and can’t defend your position. I dare you!
You have admitted to being in denial, you have demonstrated your preference for mis-information. You have not told me why you are so scared of ACC; you can’t even be truthful with me.
That is your credibility Adrian, right there.
I will, however, suspend my disbelief in your credibility and give you the opportunity to shine, to redeem yourself and show me wrong, to show me your falsification of ACC. Can you answer my questions:
Do you have any falsifiable evidence, any published peer reviewed scientific journals that finds/concludes that ACC is false? If so, can you post it, and convince me that the climate change scientific community has accepted your claims? If not, then can you admit to the fact that you can’t back up any of your pathetic claims?
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Prediction: You will once again not answer my questions. But you will draw attention to your broken reason filters and highlight your museum of mistakes. You will demonstrated your proficiency in insults given that you can’t defend your denialist position. Are you happy with that?
You waste many words while hiding behind half a name. If you are so sure why don’t you identify yourself and put up you credentials and credits, as have I. See 3/4 of my credits at: worldcat.org, read my US Patent 7,855,061, search the US Patent Office for my patents pending, which they have published in spite of my asking that they not. Normally it costs $300 per and I preferred they remain covered until granted, but the USPTO is as corrupt as any Federal bureau. The facts of “global warming” are very simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
You have not answered my questions Adrian. But you did live up to my prediction. Well done!
What credentials do you have in climate change science, Adrian? I had a look and found none! Zip, Zero, nada, nill.
You have no credentials (published peer reviewed scientific journals, qualifications, citations) in climate change sciecne. None!
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
Let me show how you struggle with the basic of coherence:
You claim:
And then:
That is quite a dichotomy, Adrian. Or is that your cognitive dissonance.
I think it’s your broken reason filter that is on show in your museum of mistakes.
You are the one that claim ACC is false, yet you can’t sting a coherent argument together to support that.
You see Adrian, I’m not the one here that claim to know more than settled scientific knowledge. That is your department, remember?
Can you now answer my questions and tell me if you are in stage 2 (anger) of accepting scientific knowledge?
Want me to post my questions again? Or do you prefer to be my puppy and live up to my predictions, on my command?
ou have admitted to being in denial, you have demonstrated your preference for mis-information. You have not told me why you are so scared of ACC; you can’t even be truthful with me.
That is your credibility Adrian, right there.
I will, however, suspend my disbelief in your credibility and give you the opportunity to shine, to redeem yourself and show me wrong, to show me your falsification of ACC.
Unanswered
Do you have any falsifiable evidence, any published peer reviewed scientific journals that finds/concludes that ACC is false? If so, can you post it, and convince me that the climate change scientific community has accepted your claims? If not, then can you admit to the fact that you can’t back up any of your pathetic claims?
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Prediction: You will once again not answer my questions. But you will draw attention to your broken reason filters and highlight your museum of mistakes. You will demonstrated your proficiency in insults given that you can’t defend your denialist position. Are you happy with that?
You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change – ACC). The stages are:
1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science, its method and your greed
2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief
3) Acceptance: You always knew ACC was not false
Before you try and understand this, let me explain to you more detail regarding stage 1: denial.
Your denial will always take on 3 basic logical fallacies:
1.1. Appeal to authority.
You will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.
1.2. Appeal on consequences
You will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely your outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that you can spread your ignorance to them, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.
1.3. Circular Reasoning
You will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, you will not acknowledge that, you will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.
I can’t change you, only you can do that. All I can do is explain the facts and the stages of denial/acceptance you are in. It’s your job to understand it; I can’t do your homework for you.
How will you move yourself t stage two (anger)? You may already be there, given your gas bag insults. Tell me, what is this belief you have that now prevents you from moving to stage 3 (acceptance) of scientific knowledge?
Or are you a case of not being above to move at all to stage 2?
You can’t convince a climate denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.
Show me wrong Adrian, please.
Adrian,
Over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies directly related to climate change get published per year now. There is no field of study in 400 years of science that has not gotten more accurate as more scientists have piled on. The body of peer-reviewed papers in this arena has moved in a clear direction: Away from denial.
You can count on two hands the scientists affiliated with Big Oil either directly or indirectly who claim humans do not influence climate. (Scientists who have actually gotten climate change research published). You can count on 1 hand the diminishing tally of studies they manage to squeeze past peer-review disparaging ACC even as the number of papers directly related to ACC rapidly crests 10,000 studies annually.
Climate scientists are paid to research impartially. Deniers are paid to advocate an opinion. If you can’t differentiate the two, you’re probably right in denier’s target demographic.
None of what you say is true. There are thousands of scientists, engineers, physicians, etc. that are opposed to “man-caused climate change.” The Oregon Project has over 31,000 signitures of such people. The issue is on purely political and in search of new power, taxes, bureaus, rule, regulations and people to enforce them in the same style in the name of corruption in government. The truth is very simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.
This is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals via attempts of falsifying the evidence.
Oregon Project? Are you suggesting that opinion should be accepted as science? LOL. You’re desperate Adrian.
Your Petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/)) is rubbish for two reasons:
1) The opinion of 31,000+ scientists and engineers says nothing about the truth of anthropogenic climate change. Science does not work on opinion, my dear. Science pay attention to, not eminence, but falsifiable evidence.
2) Your petition is merely an appeal to authority, an appeal to consequences, and circular logic (begging the question).
Let me explain each.
1. Appeal to Authority:
You do not need to be qualified or be a specialist in a field of science in order to understand and accept the conclusions and implications of a scientific theory.
You do however need to be or and be a specialist in a field of science in order to deconstruct, falsify and reject the conclusions and hypotheses of a scientific theory.
The questions are:
How many of those 31,487 American scientists are climate change scientists with a supporting qualification?
How many of those 31,487 American scientists are climate change scientists and have peer reviewed published journals on climate change?
Has any of the 31,487 American scientists been able to falsify anthropogenic climate change – if so where is this?
A PhD in Medicine does not make you an expert on climate science, especially if you have no journals on that.
2. Appeal to consequences.
If someone says I can accept anthropogenic climate change, but do not care (will not do anything to reduce emissions). I can somewhat respect that because there is an acknowledgement that the science is correct.
If someone says I do not accept anthropogenic climate change, and do not care (will not do anything to reduce emissions). I can not respect that because there is an unfounded acknowledgement that the science is wrong. And there is a selfish setting where said person is rejecting responsibility.
Your money can not clean up the atmosphere.
Using less fuel, and less energy in your house is not costing you anything.
3. Circular logic (begging the question)
The petition assumes that the anthropogenic climate change is false in order to claim it’s false.
This is quite evident in the stating there is no evidence, just to argue (please sign the petition) there is no evidence.
Here are some peer reviewed scientific journals that explains how consensus emerges in science.
http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Let me repeat that again, consensus emerges when findings in science converge to the same conclusion.
Maybe that went over your head. Consensus is an effect, not a cause. You fallacious Petition is a an Opinion, and it is a cause.
Let me repeat that again, consensus emerges when findings in science converge to the same conclusion. The Opinion of 31,000 people is causing you to assert a claim and to showcase your denialism born in ignorance of science.
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC/GW?
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies anthropogenic CC/GW?
3) Can you present me your climate change model to support your peer review report?
4) Can you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)?
5) Can you present me your evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong when it comes to anthropogenic CC/GW?
“Ph.D.” in Medicine? You are so ignorant you do not know the degree is “MD.”
You did not answer my questions. Stop with your crank theories, Adrian.
Your “questions” are not questions. They are attempts to be clever, but are ridiculous. Are you allowed to drive, have a bank account or use public facilities?
Your attempts to sound erudite are clumsy and born in crank theory.
You have not given me a good reason why you fail to answer my question. Why are they attempts to be clever, but is ridiculous? Are you defining things into existence again, Adrian?
You could answer ‘No’, to these two questions below. But you don’t, because we both know your answer is ‘Yes’. Pretending that they are not answerable, is your answer of ‘Yes’.
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
So, you agree that opinion (your fallacious petition) has nothing to do with the truth of ACC.
Fine.
Why do you deny ACC then?
It’s about your greed anx lovd of crank theory.
Scientific research found:
1) There is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.
2) There is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
You would be well advised to stop documenting your mental infirmities. If the authorities see your ravings and determine who your are the thing you will see are mattresses for wallpaper.
You know, if you’d thought before typing, you could have come up with a cogent reply.
Why do you deny ACC then?
What do you have to lose if ACC is true?
Are you saying no to both these questions below, if so, where is your evidence?
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
Nothing is settled in science but Faraday’s Law of Electrochemical Equivalents. It is the only axiom in Chemistry and Physics for which there is no exception. Therefore nothing is “settled” in science, save one law and that is a very thin support for that idea. There are no “greenhouse gases,” as I have previously explained.
You did not answer any of my questions Adrian. Why is that?
No greenhouse gasses? You admitted to making up your own definition of greenhouse gas, Adrian. Did you forget?
Nothing in sciecne is settled? Ok, your Le Chateleier Principle [CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt is dismissed then.
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
The principles of green house gases and the role of CO2 in regulating the earths temperature were C19th discoveries, that have been consolidated by approaching 200 years of research.
If you weren’t malicious you would just be an idiot:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560
If you weren’t malicious you would just be an idiot:
Malicdiot? Idicious?
Best,
D
You are poorly citing the work of Svante Arrhenius in 1896 with the publication of his first book on the subject. Then he did more work and discovered his first ideas were in error and published a follow-up denying the first book, but your sort never mention that fact. As well: H2O and CO2 IR, heat wave absorption charts show that water vapor absorbs seven times as much heat per molecule as CO2 and has 188 times as many molecules thus absorbing 1316 times as much heat from sunlight as does CO2 which is 99.9% of all such energy absorbed from sunlight. CO2 is insignificant in the atmosphere.
Is your argument so pathetic that you have to misrepresent what I said to even begin making a case? ….. We both know the answer to that.
But hey, you talk vaguely about Svante Arrhenius with no reference. Here he is in 1906 still talking about the effect of CO2 on temperature.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
Speaking of things unmentioned, you don’t mention that water atmospheric water vapor has a rapid turn over measured in days while atmospheric CO2 turnover is measured in centuries, which allows additions to build up with time.
You also don’t mention that warmer air holds more moisture, so that any warming caused by CO2 results in more atmospheric water vapor, resulting in an amplification of warming resulting in more water vapor etc. as a positive feedback system.
The link you provide yields an error message saying,” This page does not exist.”
What you say of the atmospheric persistence of water vapor compared to CO2 is not true, not provable and not science. It is true that Jim Hansen says stuff like this, but no has had a chance to challenge him on it as he never puts these things into print.
Per Le Chatelier: More CO2 means less water vapor and where H2O absorbs seven times as much IR energy as CO2, molecule for molecule, the net effect of increasing CO2 is that of reducing solar heating of the atmosphere. Water vapor is doing 99.9% of it in any case. Do the math. Can you?
Why are you in denial of the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate chnage (ACC)?
For the following reasons:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
You just admitted to being a climate change denier.
Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic vlimate changea q, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.
Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial.
That is enough to dismiss your ridiculous claims.
Am not done yet.
You completely forgot to cite your scientific sources to support your pathetic claims.
And no, your cheap book Adrian Vance, is from you, a known science mis-informer and denier, is not a published peer reviewed scientific journal. Normal people would stop there and reject his pseudo science, but not you.
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas, just like magnets.
Is there a crank theory that uou do not believe in?
See above and calm down. You sound like you are on the verge of cardiac arrest, but then that would be practicing medicine without a license so die already…
It is you that demolished your own credibility Adrian. Remember, you admitted to being in denial. You demonstrated that you prefer to resort to insults because you have no evidence to support your absurd claims:
And then you render it in undestructable cement:
Why are you so angry Adrian? You exposed yourself, shot down your own credibility, yet you blame me for that!
Do you genially believe that you will convert me to your astro reality with insults?
Nice try though, Adrian, you must have been a real short-term hero in your mis-informantion / denialism study group. Have you ever thought that you might be bored simply because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait, paradox.
You have my prediction and my questions. Show me wrong Adrian, I dare you.
You have admitted to being in denial, you have demonstrated your preference for mis-information. You have not told me why you are so scared of ACC; you can’t even be truthful with me.
That is your credibility Adrian, right there.
I will, however, suspend my disbelief in your credibility and give you the opportunity to shine, to redeem yourself and show me wrong, to show me your falsification of ACC. Can you answer my questions:
Do you have any falsifiable evidence, any published peer reviewed scientific journals that finds/concludes that ACC is false? If so, can you post it, and convince me that the climate change scientific community has accepted your claims? If not, then can you admit to the fact that you can’t back up any of your pathetic claims?
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Prediction: You will once again not answer my questions. But you will draw attention to your broken reason filters and highlight your museum of mistakes. You will (and have already in your other post to me) demonstrated your proficiency in insults given that you can’t defend your denialist position. Are you happy with that?
You just admitted to being a climate change denier.
Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.
Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial.oh, the irony.
That is enough to dismiss your ridiculous claims.
I’m not done yet.
You completely forgot to cite your scientific sources to support your pathetic claims.
And no, your cheap book Adrian Vance, is from you, a known science mis-informer and denier, it’s not a published peer reviewed scientific journal. Normal people would stop there and reject pseudo science and fake realities, but not you.
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
You could not even be honest with me to share the real reason why you are in denial of climate science ACC. It’s because of your greed. You fear the political and economical implications of ACC on your life style. Why can’t you at least be honest? Is being a denier and a mis-informer not enough for you?
There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas, just like magnets.
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Pay attention Adrian. Answer my questions.
Listen, you arrogant jerk fascist, you do not tell me what to think. That you think I have confessed to some kind of crime by quoting facts tells the world what you are: sick.
If you want to know about my credentials you may start at http://worldcat.org where on inputting my name you will see a list of 614 of my publications in film, filmstrip, national magazines, books for our largest publishers, etc. and this is only 3/4 of my credits as there are more than 800 such copyrighted publications in my name and that does not include that I have been on the masthead of two national magazines as an “Editor,” had my own radio and TV shows doing over 100 broadcasts, some national and international, made Fellow by the Royal Photographic Society of Photography of the UK, “…for his contributions to our understanding of vision and photography.” Credited by the leading authority on cartography in antiquity for having solved the several hundred year old mystery of the Peri Reis” map of 1513, of the world, see page 35 of “Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings,” by Dr. Charles H. Hapgood and for having re-discovered the secret method that Captain John Cook used in the 18th century to place islands in the South Pacific so accurately their positions have only been improved recently by satellites, by the Smithsonian Institution, Summer Quarterly 1974.
Now, what the Hell are your credentials?
I say “global warming” and man caused “climate change” is BS and I can prove it. “Vapor Tiger” contains a demo where you can prove it for yourself for about $10. Do the work and you will know.
Adrian Vance
You did not answer my questions Adrian. Why is that? Oh, because you are in denial – you admitted that much! That, in itself, is progress of some kind!
Yes, Adrian, the most cogent and persuasive assessments of scientific peer review typically begin “Listen, you arrogant jerk fascist…” Your credibility is obviously unimpeachable and your scathing indictment of the scientific establishment has convinced me to join your cult. Where do I mail the check?
Incidentally, I’m educated in physics and chemistry, but not a climate scientist, and know neither are you. However, I do try to keep up with important scientific work in other fields, especially when it produces results with significant implications for public policy. I accept the consensus of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and that the human extinction risk is high if we do not reduce the CO2 levels immediately. I accept it because I accept the scientific method and I value the truth over what I would personally prefer to be the case. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.
I asked you for your published peer reviewed scientific journals that falsifies ACC but you provided none. Your book is a work of fiction, cemented in your museum of mistakes.
It is not enough just to go agaist the establishment Adrian. You need to be right as well.
This is not a political issue, it is a scientific issue, both you or I have no say in any scientific theory, we are not qualified. Because you cannot see the difference tells me that you are not worth my time.
Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest. I’m glad many countries have initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?
You have admitted to being in denial of accepted science, the science where a 97% consensus emerged that states anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is a scientific theory. In case you are still pondering about it, you admitted to living in your own pseudo astro reality, born and fashioned in delusion.
You claim:
What makes you think that science proves or disproves anything? Perhaps, in your manufactured doubt reality, you have ‘prove’.
Read this, it is free:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
And pay attention to:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10
You may find comfort and assurance in the words of climate change deniers, but if you think humans can spew poison into the atmosphere and expect a non-existent entity to clean it up, then your living in a dream world.
Anthropogenic climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
As for your so called “prove”, I had a look. I don’t understand what you’re claiming. People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.
You have admitted to being in denial, you have demonstrated your preference for mis-information. You have not told me why you are so scared of ACC; you can’t even be truthful with me.
That is your credibility Adrian, right there.
I will, however, suspend my disbelief in your credibility and give you the opportunity to shine, to redeem yourself and show me wrong, to show me your falsification of ACC. Can you answer my questions:
Do you have any falsifiable evidence, any published peer reviewed scientific journals that finds/concludes that ACC is false? If so, can you post it, and convince me that the climate change scientific community has accepted your claims? If not, then can you admit to the fact that you can’t back up any of your pathetic claims?
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Prediction: You will once again not answer my questions. But you will draw attention to your broken reason filters and highlight your museum of mistakes. You will (and have already in your other post to me) demonstrated your proficiency in insults given that you can’t defend your denialist position. Are you happy with that?
I did not see a specific, or even coherent, question, just a bunch of gibberish and grammatical errors.
Thanks to the people you admired “peer reviewed” has become a label of infamy, insincerity and fraud. He had none for the one paper he wrote on “forcing” wherein he did not explain the concept, mechanism or mathematical model.
He never wrote “…man made CO2 stays in the atmosphere 1,000 years where natural CO2 dissolves in seawater in a few days.” In Kansas? And, he knew damn well the science trianed readers would know he was a fraud, but he would say it when he spoke to untrained audiences. And: What about the Wohler synthesis that showed all molecules are the same regardless origin? That is one of the pillars of chemistry. Can you say what year that was done? Every Chem major knows.
Your attempts to sound erudite are clumsy and idiotic. You do not give your name, credentials, publications, etc. as you have none. Your language is clumsy. That you cannot criticize my work in physical or chemical terms dashes your claim to education, much less credentials.
Your people claim disaster impending if CO2 gets to 490 ppm by 2100 AD, but much of our fine produce has been grown in greenhouses with CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm and no deleterious effects to the workers, but the plants love it and grow much faster. Our orange and corn harvests are up 30% since the CO2 went up to 390 ppm.
I will soon publish a demo showing that raising CO2 to 490 ppm causes the temperature to decline, per Le Chatlier where [[CO2] x [H2O g]] / [H2O liq] = Kt. Now, demonstrate your physical science education, solve for CO2 and tell me why it is important in this discussion.
I say you cannot because you, like so many of your ilk, are a fraud.
Thank you for living up to prediction Adrian. I admire your courage.
I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.
I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your denialism, mis-information and non-truth as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.
Quit being a whiny, hypocritical weasel. Until you take the high ground and refrain from insults and self-aggrandizement, such supercilious blustering only reinforces your lowly stature as a posturing puke without integrity or personal responsibility
I’m not interested in debunking your canards, because you will just play the next one without acknowledging it was refuted. That is too easy to do, and it will waste both our time. All that will do is anchor you as a climate mis-informer to climate denier. Do you honestly want to increase entropy that much just to display your museum of mistakes? You should rather admit to non-truth and without decreasing useful energy.
You just underscored my point for me: the strong correlation between global warming denial and belief in laissez-faire capitalism.
This is quite sad, because if you were to accept the basic reality of ACC, people might actually be willing to listen to your suggestions of how to deal with it in a market-orientated way, with minimum impact on business and your quality of life.
But no, you deny it altogether and make yourself increasingly irrelevant. You chose to imagine a reality that simply does not exist, just to avoid your responsibility.
You claim:
No Adrian, I’m not interested in your self-confessed pseduo science. I’m after a challenge, and that is to help you accept scientific knowledge. Helping you move through the stages of acceptance: stage 1 (denial) to stage 2 (anger), and then to stage 3 (acceptance).
This will be hard work . You need to be willing to participate, promise that you will be honest, attentive and do your homework. Only you can move yourself. Want to have a go?
Deal?
Or do you prefer to remain predictable and live up to my prediction again?
You have admitted to being in denial, you have demonstrated your preference for mis-information. You have not told me why you are so scared of ACC; you can’t even be truthful with me.
That is your credibility Adrian, right there.
I will, however, suspend my disbelief in your credibility and give you the opportunity to shine, to redeem yourself and show me wrong, to show me your falsification of ACC. Can you answer my questions:
Do you have any falsifiable evidence, any published peer reviewed scientific journals that finds/concludes that ACC is false? If so, can you post it, and convince me that the climate change scientific community has accepted your claims? If not, then can you admit to the fact that you can’t back up any of your pathetic claims?
Tell me, is your pseudo claims classified as facts in your delusional reality?
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Prediction: You will once again not answer my questions. But you will draw attention to your broken reason filters and highlight your museum of mistakes. You will (and have already in your other post to me) demonstrated your proficiency in insults given that you can’t defend your denialist position. Are you happy with that?
Do it again Adrian, live up to my prediction again. At least, it seems like, that you can follow commands!
You don’t even have a name? Here, read the truth:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
The name is John. Can’t you read?
I have covered all your canards already Adrian. Short memory?
You are in denial. You invented your own reality because you can’t face the scientific truth.
I’m interested in your greed, nof your canards.
What do you have to fear if anthropogenic climate change is true?
The truth is very simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
You already wrote that. Don’t you have new canards?
I’m interested in your greed, not your canards.
What do you have to fear if anthropogenic climate change is true?
According to Forbes Magazine economists this has already cost America $7 trillion. I think it is more as all the textbooks are now full of this nonsense.
What on earth makes you think that your money can fix the atmosphere?
So, you fear that it would impact your lifestyle?
What do you think is of more value $10 trillion or the survival of life on earth?
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
Here, read it:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
We covered your carnards already Adrian. You refused to defend them.
Let’s talk about your greed.
Why are you so scared of anthropogenic climate change being true?
You ask:
What makes you think I need credentials in climate change science in order to accept its basic findings?
What makes you think that you don’t need credentials in climate change science in order to meaningfully challenge those findings?
I have credentials and credits. You have nothing. Check me out at worldcat.org
I checked it. You gave no credentials in climate change science. None. Zip, zero, nill, null.
One does not need credentials in a field of science to accept its basic findings.
You do need credentials in that field of science to meaningful challenge those findings.
You have no credentials in climate change science, yet deny the scientific findings. You don’t even challenge then, you simply deny it exits.
But this is about your greed, Adrian. Why do you fear anthropogenic climate change?
If you cannot understand the following you should spend a little time with a science teacher and have him explain it to you:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
You already argued that your science is not settled scoence. By your own admission, I should reject your drivel.
So, you agree that you havd n OK credentials in climate change science.
Fine.
Why do you deny ACC then?
It’s about your greed anx love of crank theory.
Scientific research found:
1) There is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.
2) There is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
“Scoence? You have lost your grip on reality, Jerko.
You can’t convince an anthropogenic climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.
Oh, so I’m not Michael Mann anymore, lol?
I checked and you have no credentials in climate science.
However, your name appears on some the climate change denier lists. No all if them – your not that well known it seems.
What now Adrian? Are you proud to have Denier and pseudo scientist as credentials?
My credentials, of which I am rightly proud as they include several awards and over 800 copyrights, a patent and several pending, are a matter of public record and you have nothing.
I am also proud to stand with Dr. Robert Lindsen, Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Wm. Gray, Dr. Robert Essenhigh, all leaders in the field and all deeply opposed to the false concepts promoted by Jim Hansen and Michael Moor. My associates are far more qualified, experienced, published and authoritative than your clatch of grant sucker parasites ruining America.
You still have no credentials in climate science. Thank you for admitting that, again!
I know that you stand with the cliamte change deniers. Thank you for underscoring my point for me.
Now, given that you have no credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) in cliamte change science, how do you know Anthropogenic Climate Change is false?
You do not need “climate science credentials” to understand the very simple physical relationship. To wit:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
You do need “climate science credentials” to meaningful challenge the scientific theory of ACC.
You have no “climate science credentials”, yet challenges ACC. How is that logical, Adrian?
You already claimed that there is no settled silence, so your fake Le Chateleier Principle “[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt is pointless by your own admission.
Now, given that you have no credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) in cliamte change science, how do you know Anthropogenic Climate Change is false?
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
How have climate scientists misrepresented basic science? Or is it that you’d like to believe they’ve misrepresented basic science so you can dismiss everything their evidence concludes?
One does not give equal weight to the correct and incorrect sides of an argument. This is science, not politics.
Do you know what “appeal to consequences” is? You should, since you’ve just committed that particular fallacy. If anthropogenic climate change is not false, then unpleasant things will happen (e.g., you’ll have to change your libertarian ideology, let go of your greed, relax your life style). Because of that, therefore ACC can’t be true for you. I think you can do better than that. We both know that you are in denial of ACC because you fear the impact on your life style – you’re greedy!
Tell me honestly why you are in denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)?
Why are you so scared of it, what will you lose?
You are quite right, I listen only to science and I don’t let BS sway me. That’s why I know ACC is real and ACC Denial is rubbish. You’re also right that science follows fact (i.e., evidence and logic). That’s exactly why there’s such a strong consensus that ACC is real. All the deniers have are appeals to authority (e.g., you says it’s not real, therefore it can’t be real no matter what the many other scientists, including some nobelists, who actually work in the field say); appeals to consequences (ACC may force us to change our political beliefs and lifestyle, therefore it can’t be real) and lots of false claims that just won’t die no matter how many times they’re debunked.
At least you’re deliberately honest in conceding that you haven’t studied the ACC matter to any appreciable degree. You should, because you would learn that much of what you have heard from the denier world is simply false. You should also understand the difference between the objective scientific fact of a warming planet, the objective scientific theory of ACC and the political question of what, if anything, should be done about it. ACC deniers frequently conflate the two, and it’s probably too generous to assume it’s an honest mistake.
This is the greatest fraud for money and power in the history of science and politics. It is just that simple.
How do you know that?
We covered your carnards already Adrian. You refused to defend them.
Let’s talk about your greed.
Why are you so scared of anthropogenic climate change being true?
You claim:
Are you now denying being in denial?
Oh, the irony!
Arrogant jerk fascist?
Wow Adrian, just wow.
Adrian,
I have some time available and will destroy all your canards. But we both know that you will not acknowledge that, because you already admitted that you are in denial.
You just admitted to being a climate change denier.
Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.
Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial. Oh, the irony.
That is enough to dismiss your ridiculous claims, but below is the detail. And we both know that you will not admit to your false claims or admit that I debunked your canards. It’s so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements, yet you chose not to.
You claim:
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule constituting that 9 trillion tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
Only 7% of total CO2 is from anthropogenic sources, the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor. Without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid. People who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html
You claim:
Without the greenhouse effect of water vapor, the earth would be 14 degrees colder than it is. In other words, without water vapor there would be no water vapor (only ice). Why does the earth have water vapor in the first place? It’s because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states. Water vapor is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
Climate change as a scientific theory was first developed by Svante Arrhenius over a century ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
(look there under “Greenhouse effect”)
The heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor. Without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid. People who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics. Without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place. Water vapor does not just magically appear. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
This fails to understand the laws of physics governing heat transfer in the atmosphere. CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM. It absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM. Energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above. Energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend. This process is governed by the laws of physics and is not open to debate. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060
You claim:
Eight separate investigations found that no data manipulation occurred. One of these investigations was carried out by Pennsylvania State University, and concluded in its report: “there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. All eight investigations reached similar conclusions. http://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controversial-climate-research-unit
You claim:
What makes you think there is an anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? That is the earth is warming is a scientific fact. Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific theory (a hypothesis that graduated because nobody could falsify the evidence). At least try to understand the very thing that you claim to deny exist, bejesus Adrian.
CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages, but it did amplify the warming. About 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase at the end of the last ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
Again, external forcings initiate warming, which in turn initiates the release of carbon gases which then accelerates the warming. CO2 has not been the root cause of natural warming in the past, but it is the root cause of anthropogenic warming happening now. Climate deniers do not understand the science. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract
Some links that shows CO2 leads and follows warming.
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf and this: ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf and this: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/bjs0601.pdf and this: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
After you’ve read those, how about you tell me why you think it’s warming.
You claim:
How can you claim that Methane is a greenhouse gas is you claim there is no greenhouse effect on earth? Have it both ways Adrian?
There are hundreds of millions of tons of methane in the atmosphere, and each molecule represents an unlimited number of heat transfer events. Its mere existence in any concentration means that it contributes measurably to average sub-tropospheric temperatures. http://www.acsf.cornell.edu/Assets/ACSF/docs/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf
You claim:
You are merely underscoring my point for me that you are greedy.
Of course I don’t expect to win, because climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs. Yes, the temperature of the sun plays a role in climate. However, the sun’s output has been measured from space since almost the beginning of the space age and it varies only 0.1% over the 11-year solar cycle. It does not explain rising temperatures, and the claim that it does is a common denier fallacy. Increases in temperature can either lead or follow increases in CO2 depending on the cause of the temperature increase. There can be more than one cause, you know. Just because past increases were driven by, say, Milankovich cycles does not mean that the increases now cannot be driven by human CO2 emissions. That’s another common denier fallacy. Planetary positions have no effect on the earth’s climate except indirectly by causing the earth’s poles and orbit to precess. That’s the cause of Milankovich cycles, but they are very slow and fairly predictable, so they cannot explain the current rapid temperature rise. That’s another common denier fallacy. Yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere has been this high in the past. But it wasn’t supporting the same life as today — specifically homo sapiens. The last time was about 800,000 years ago, long before modern humans. It’s now 400 ppm. The last time it reached even 300 ppm was 325,000 years ago, again before modern humans. Yes, the earth’s temperature has been much higher (and much lower) than today, but again it wasn’t supporting the same life because this was long before modern humans. These are just a few of the common denier fallacies that won’t go away because denial is based on political ideology, not science
The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html
You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about humans only producing a smidgen of CO2 emissions. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.
You claim:
You are assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to get more grant money. Remember, the very worst thing a scientist solely interested in more grant money can say is “we’ve reached a consensus, we’re done, there’s not much more to do”.
And no, the grant money does not go to the scientists. It goes to the institution and they use it to pay staff, scientists, facilities, facilities, technology and instruments.
I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of global warming as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.
NIPCC is suppose to be a group of pseudoscientists that are commissioned by The Heartland Institute to write a report for them. The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so. Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference. The group of NIPCC pseudoscientists examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports. NIPCC is not a scientific body, it is a group of people that are funded to write a NIPCC report for the pseudoscience Heartland Institution. Gee baby, do you even know what a scientific body is?
The IPCC is a scientific body. According to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report. Therefore, the NIPCC is not a scientific body.
Heartland apparently spent over $1.6 million on this NIPCC project. The latest IPCC report, by contrast, was drafted by 259 scientists from 39 countries, supported by over 600 reviewers and contributors. IPCC scientists are unpaid and volunteer their expertise.
You just admitted to being a climate change denier.
Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.
Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial. Oh, the irony.
That is enough to dismiss your ridiculous claims.
My God! You must have stayed up all night to do this one!
I stand by my original remarks. Any gas with less than 1% concentration is air is classified as “a trace.”
“Heat transfer events” is gobbledygook.
“In other words, without water vapor there would be no water vapor (only ice).” My God, you are an idiot.
Your misspellings, capitilization of compound names and numerous mistakes of that kind confess that you are an uneducated simpleton and I see no reason to continue to respond to you.
You could not solve for CO2 in my abbreviated Le Chatelier equation question there confirming your ignorance.
You do not understand your own citations or that they are in conflict with your conclusions regarding them. You make all the mistakes of an ignoramous and richly deserve to be in the same camp with the Senate Idiot Markey.
Adrian, you already admitted to being in denial. Why cement that now?
Your post consists of multiple assertion fallacies.
You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!
You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.
Adrian, Adrian, Adrian, you already admitted to being in denial. Why cement that now?
Your post consists of multiple assertion fallacies.
You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!
You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
You already admitted to being in denial and that your sciecne [CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt is not settled and will never be.
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
You seem to think denying anthropogenic global warming, aka “climate change” is some kind of mental illness. That is invalid on its face.
“espousal of free markets” would be a discussion in economics and “scientific consensus’ a non-sequitar as science is, by definition, always in flux and open to revision. Any “consensus” is, at best, a temporary state of the art.
So you agree that you don’t know anything about the science of ACC, nor about settled scientific knowledge or the scientific method. Your belief in scientific consensus is flawed. Nothing in your science is setted except for your fallacious CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt .
Fine.
Why do you deny ACC then?
It’s about your greed and love of crank theory. This is about your beliefs, that’s why you deny ACC.
Scientific research found:
1) There is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.
2) There is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
Tell me md more about your greed and about your crank theories.
You have just confessed your utter ignorance to anyone that has been through a well-taught high school chemistry, like mine when I was teaching, or Chem 1 in college.
Your ravings, “1” and “2” are utter gobbledygook and evidence that should be read at your sanity hearing, which certainly in your future. Your extraneous symbols, like “md” are a sign the deterioration is nearing completion.
Why do you deny ACC then?
Why do you fear if ACC is true?
What do you have to lose if ACC s true?
You are alluding to the first of two books by Svante Arrhenius, Sweden’s premier chemist of the late 19th century. He did propose burning a million tons of coal to heat the atmosphere of cold Sweden and then enjoy the heating effect thereafter in his first 1897 book, but two years later he wrote an apologia, also published by the University of Heidelberg Press, denying the first hypothesis, but he did not develop a quantitative relationship as did Le Chetelier in the early 20th century. In essence it was:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas then?
Think before you answer. Remember, you previously claimed that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
It’s going to be fun watching you answer that.
I stand with my previous explanation. It is valid; you are not.
You’re defining things into existence Adrian. That’s an appeal to assertion and is rejected on its face. So is your CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt .
Tell me about your greed and belief in crank theory.
That you are ignorant of basic chemistry at the AP high school level or college first year, confirms you are raving nutcase and a waste of time.
Great, you agree then:
There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism.
Fantastic. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.
I don’t understand your request.
Remember, I’m stupid. I was the dumbest in my class. I’ve always been open about that.
However, my stupidly is no excuse for your ignorance and denialism; your greed and belief in crank theory.
One does not need credentials in a field of study to accept its basic findings. You, however, need credentials in that field of study to meaningful challenge those findings.
I see no point debating the ACC science with you or taking your word for it or studying your material (doing homework). You’re not qualified. Also, as you can tell, teacher, I’m able to educate myself on any subject of my chosing.
Incidentally, I told you before “use Google, it is so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish and unintelligent statements”. You chose not to, yet ask me to educate you, but you call me stupid! I’ll be in real trouble if you really though I was stupid!
Absolutely logical, the logic is so obvious it dissappeared for you!
At least now you know why you’re in denial. It’s about your greed and love of crank theory.
No, I do not agree with your goofy ideas, mixed metaphors and rabid ravings. You are a nutcase and I should stop responding to you as I feel that I am only irritating a dumb animal. Everything I say is based on well-known principles in chemistry and physics. If you cannot understand them then talk to a local science teacher and have him explain them to you. I can do no more than that and will here end this travesty as you are a very sick person. Good luck and seek professional help.
Look, your religion (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Citing pseudo science to defend your greed and crank theories seems odd though.
And your “un-settled science” are denialist claptrap.
Climate change deniers, such as you, pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love & beget conspiracy/crank theories.
And I’m backed by that with science, Adrian. And you are providing more evidence for that.
When will you apologize for falsely accusing Michael Mann?
Have the good sense to admit you are outclassed by someone who has built a long and successful career producing science materials for the nation’s schools and general public with the objective of explaining concepts in ways that people can understand. To wit:
Earth makes 166 gigatons of CO2 every year. Most of it is from the decomposition of limestone and 1,000 volcanoes that errupt every year Some is from the decay of dead plants and animals. Man produces six gigatons, 3.22%, and of that the US makes 20%, 0.64% of the total, but with it we make 50% of Earth’s fuel, fiber and food. Three billion would starve if we did not.
Earth is not a “greenhouse.” They have covers made of transparent material with surfaces, usually glass. Surfaces can only form on solids and liquids where molecules are in contact. They are not in contact in gases, thus there is no “greenhouse effect” over our atmosphere.
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which typically has 188 times
as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat as CO2 or 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Michael Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was the longest recorded time of great abundance and peace, over 500 years.
The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases followed temperature increases by 800 years 19 times over 440,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect. This alone refutes man-caused global warming.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax-supported institutions and are eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative,” for clarity.
Ah, back with your canards again, Adrian. Don’t you have anything intelligent to say?
I’m interested in your crank theories. Tell me if there is one that you don’t believe in, Adrian.
I also want you to tell me how your greedy lifestyle will be impacted if ACC is true for you.
Your canards present me with a conundrum:
ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or
thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.
That is not how science is done. Science is not a sport, it does not have two equal sides. That you don’t understand this shows me that you’re not worth my time.
Your position is illegitimate. I don’t claim your wrong because you disagree with me. You’re wrong because your position is without merit, without backing evidence and your justification (your greed and attraction to crank theory) is pseudoscientific.
You know this very well, that this is not how we do science. But you want to explore this misconceptions to the hilt. Your game is not to change the science. You can’t, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method. You want to influence the undecided, the ignorant. That’s why you want to paint this as if there are two equal sides, both with merit. You want to steal the ignorant undecided’s political vote. That will then ultimately wrap public policy in your favor. That’s your game. It’s the same game as the bible young earth creationists play against evolution. The same as Tobacco companies play against smoking causes cancer. It’s the same game as the Sugar lobby plays against health (obesity / diabetes). You and Big Oil are trying to play this game with climate change trying to ban the teaching of it. This is not ‘warmist’ vs ‘deniers’ with the ‘skeptic’ as spectator. This is you that needs to get out of denial. The ignorant ‘skeptic’ will get educated given that we make all our scientific knowledge available for free to the public. If you want to challenge scientific knowledge, then bring your credentials and your falsifiable evidence. If you want to paint this as a debate, then it’s you against the evidence given that your position is illegitimate and science merely goes where the evidence leads.
I am a degreed physical scientist with a very long list of publications, over 800, in film,filmstrip, audio, computer programs, magazine articles and columns, radio and TV programs as guest and host, FCC licensed broadcaster, many awards, including in GB, and all you do it rant, accuse without substance. Our government is corrupt and “climate change” is only part of it. Now here, deal with some substance, if you can:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Adrian, you have no credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) in climate science. Why should I take your pseudo scientific claims seriously? Further to that, you have zero evidence that ACC is false.
Claiming you have credentials and can falsify ACC is plain dishonest of you, another crank theory.
I’m interested in your crank theories. Tell me if there is one that you don’t believe in, Adrian. I’m not asking you to list all your crank theories, I want to know if there is one that you don’t believe it. Gee man, are you that thick?
I also want you to tell me how your greedy lifestyle will be impacted if ACC is true for you.
As for your Le Chateleier Principle, it’s a canard and present me with a conundrum:
i) ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or
ii) thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.
That is not how science is done. Science is not a sport, it does not have two equal sides. That you don’t understand this shows me that you’re not worth my time.
My degree, BS in Physical Science with a Chemistry major, Biology Minor, one course short of a minor in Physics, minor in education, preparation for “across the field” science teaching is from Illinois State University.
After teaching for eight years I left for a career in writing and production of educational materials in film, audio media, print and computer programs and became the most prolific producer in science education for all the largest publishers in the business.
My career has always been based on truth and concern for the nation. Anthropogenic global warming is a fraud for money and power. In 1971 Jim Hansen tried to sell a “…coming ice age to Congress and fell on his face.” He went back to his desk in a closet at NASA and festered for 17 years until Al Gore came along with his “Earth in the Balance” plan for a “war on carbon,” Hansen provided the scientific gibberish like his “forcing” concept, which he has never explained and raves about “Watts per square meter” on the ground where that is not an issue. It is in the air and Le Chateleier rules to the utter disdain and destruction of Jim Hansen’s goofy ideas.
The distillation of this is that the lunatics are running the asylum and America is about to collapse as a result. See my part of the story free at http://CO2Au.blogspot.com and you may see there a way out.
As expected you have no credentials in Climate Change science. Do yo even know what credentials is or what climate change science is?
Why should I take your pseudo scientific claims seriously, Adrian? Further to that, you have zero evidence that ACC is false.
Claiming you have credentials and can falsify ACC is plain dishonest of you, another crank theory.
I’m interested in your crank theories. Tell me if there is one that you don’t believe in, Adrian. I’m not asking you to list all your crank theories, I want to know if there is one that you don’t believe it.
Tell me about your greed too. That’s what at the core here Adrian. And you know this as well as I do.
Credentials:
Qualifications / education / experience,
Peer reviewed publications in scientific journals,
Number of publication citations by other climate change scientists
Climate science:
Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences.
Climate Change Scientist:
Climatologists and meteorologists are two types of atmospheric scientists who study weather patterns and their effects on humans and the environment. A key difference relates to time horizons. Meteorologists focus more on short-term weather conditions while climatologists are more interested in long-term climate conditions. The climatologists publishing papers are the ones working in the field. Published climate change scientists are the ones doing all the research. Their work is subject to peer review by the top scientists in the world. People taking pot shots from afar, not doing any research and never putting their own ideas up for scientific scrutiny have no credibility.
Jim Hansen has no credentials in “climate science.” Same story for Heidi Cullen and all the rest of these people as no such degrees were offered other than a single course in meteorology which is more a course in statistics than anything else.
The physics of the atmosphere is understandable in terms of the physics of gases, even if the equations don’t work very well, which is expected as the molecules in it are wildly random and this causes all kinds of problems in trying to write equations that reduce the phenomena to a single line. They just don’t work very well. Read the history of Clausius-Clapyeyron and the “Antoine” patch that was a failed attempt to make it accurate. A few of these fools have noted the Navier-Stokes equation, but that is for viscous fluids and there is nothing viscous in the atmosphere. There is a lot of viscous material between the ears of many of these “handle” bearing global warmers posting here.
You did not answer any of my questions.
As expected you have no credentials in Climate Change science. Do yo even know what credentials is or what climate change science is?
Why should I take your pseudo scientific claims seriously, Adrian? Further to that, you have zero evidence that ACC is false.
Claiming you have credentials and can falsify ACC is plain dishonest of you, another crank theory.
I’m interested in your crank theories. Tell me if there is one that you don’t believe in, Adrian. I’m not asking you to list all your crank theories, I want to know if there is one that you don’t believe it.
Tell me about your greed too. That’s what at the core here Adrian. And you know this as well as I do.
Credentials:
Qualifications / education / experience,
Peer reviewed publications in scientific journals,
Number of publication citations by other climate change scientists
Climate science:
Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences.
Climate Change Scientist:
Climatologists and meteorologists are two types of atmospheric scientists who study weather patterns and their effects on humans and the environment. A key difference relates to time horizons. Meteorologists focus more on short-term weather conditions while climatologists are more interested in long-term climate conditions. The climatologists publishing papers are the ones working in the field. Published climate change scientists are the ones doing all the research. Their work is subject to peer review by the top scientists in the world. People taking pot shots from afar, not doing any research and never putting their own ideas up for scientific scrutiny have no credibility.
What questions? See above. There are none.
I am not aware of any university offering a Ph.D. in “Climate Science” and I used to correspond with Bob Essenhigh who was the Chair of that Department at Ohio State. I think they only had a Masters program. Other than government propaganda depts. there are no jobs.
I got my degree from Illinois State University in 1959 and did graduate work at Cal State LA in 1960 and 1961 getting the California Life Diploma Teaching Credential, a Masters Equivalent many places. Put up your particulars. Even better…
Go to WorldCat.org and input my name and you will see a listing of 614 publications in film, filmstrip, computer and audio programs, books, but not all nor my well over 200 magazine articles and columns. Check with the FCC for my Commercial Broadcasters license. Check with the US Patent Office for my patent granted, pending and filings. All of this is some area of science and engineering, although I have done about a dozen fiction books which may be part of the worldcat.org listing even though they only have 3/4 of my production. There are well over 800 pieces of many kinds with my copyright claims on them for all the major publishers here and in the UK. Check with the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain that made me a “Fellow,” I am the only American so honored, “For his contributions to our understanding of vision and photography” where I developed a system for analyzing events both witnessed and photographed as eyes and cameras record differently. Check with The Smithson Magazine that credited me with having solved the mystery of the Peri’ Reis map of 1513 which is of the whole world and for having rediscovered the secret method used by Captain John Cook to place islands in the South Pacific so accurately their positions were only improved by satellite measurements.
I say the climate is not that hard to understand and “anthropogenic global warming” is bullshit.
Adrian Vance
You still have not answered any of my questions, troll Adrian.
I want you to admit that you have no credentials in climate change science. If you don’t, then you’re a liar.
You already admitted to being in denial of ACC.
Post me your climate change scientific credentials (qualifications, publications, citations).
You have none. That much is clear.
You have no credentials in climate change science. Stop lying Adrian. I’m not interested in your crank theories. I want to know if there is a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
You have no credentials in “climate science” either. So, why should I believe your pseudo science?
Oh?
Adrian, Adrian. Insults and abuse are fine, but only as long as it is accompanied by sensible responses to my questions. If your reply has nothing besides invective, libel and false claims (i.e. no answers), then it will be pointed out.
Tell me more about your crank theories.
Moon landing – true or false?
Evolution – true or false?
9/11 Government conspiracy – true or false?
Government is hiding Aliens/UFO’s – true or false?
Earth’s resources are limited – true or false?
The smartest people in the world are wrong about ACC – true or false?
No Science is settled, except for your pseudo science [CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt – true or false?
Tell me about your greed then.
Do you think that governments should regulate limited resources?
Are you in favor of free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism?
What political or economical implication will impact your life the most if ACC is true? We both know it’s not the carbon tax, so what is it?
What makes your lifestyle so special that it triumph all other life on earth?
Open up and tell me all.
Now you are conceding with an insult.
Remember, your religion (anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself.
Pontificating the espousal of un-regulated free markets to defend your ACC denial seems strangely odd though.
And your “chemistry” are denialist claptrap crank theory.
Still making absurd claims Adrian?
Check it out: I speak only truth and use my full name. Who the Hell are you, coward.
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas then, given your claim “Water vapor does 99.9% of all atmospheric heating”?
Think before you answer. Remember, you previously claimed that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
It’s going to be fun watching you answer that.
Here’s your claim that there is no greenhouse effect:
***getting the popcorn…this will be fun….crunch, crunch****
Again, there are no “greenhouse gases” as no gas rises to above the atmosphere and forms a solid, clear cover for Earth. That is what they would have to do to literally be a “greenhouse gas.” There are two gases that absorb IR energy from sunlight: Water vapor and CO2, but CO2 to only one-seventh that of water vapor and where CO2 has 1/188th the number of molecules as water vapor it can only do 1/1316th the heating of water vapor or less than 0.1%
The term “greenhouse gas” is Ph.D. comity code for “Let me prattle my BS and I will let you do your own,” to all other such scoundrals.
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas or not?
There are no greenhouse gases. The term is “inside physics” jargon to invoke a comity code.
A greenhouse requires a transparent solid with plane surfaces to effect an angular window to select what may enter and what may not. No gas can execute such an operation. You are being ripped off, lied to and lead by insincere people. It is just that simple.
Can you define greenhouse gas?
So, how can you claim water vapor absorbs IR and causes warming? Magic?
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Adrian,
You did not answer my question.
How can you claim water vapor absorbs IR and causes warming?
I already caught you out lying about Michael Mann. You refused to apologize for that. I see no reason why you would not lie again about Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr.
As for your your Le Chateleier Principle being: [CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt is rubbish. I have never heard of that. Le Chateleier Principle is about “Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system”
I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.
This is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals via attempts of falsifying the evidence.
Where is your published peer reviewed scientific journal that falsifies ACC?
You don’t have that, so there is no point discussing the science with you.
So, let’s move on.
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
Do you?
I agree, a greenhouse does require a solid surface. I have one at home.
But we are not talking about a greenhouse. We are talking about a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect.
Given that you claim there is no greenhouse gasses, can you now define what a greenhouse gas is? Surely you should know the definition if you so proudly reject it’s existence.
Additionally, do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change? Lastly, do you agree that there is a positive correlation between rejection of climate change and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
You should, because you made those assertions.
Yes, the most cogent and persuasive assessments of scientific peer review typically begin “Again, there are no “greenhouse gases”. Your credibility is obviously unimpeachable and your scathing indictment of the scientific establishment has convinced me to join your cult. Where do I mail the check?
That is not the definition of a greenhouse gas.
Can you define greenhouse gas for me?
So, water vapor and CO2 absorbs IR.
A gas that contributes to the earth’s warming by absorbing infrared radiation is called a greenhouse gas.
You contradicted yourself, again!
How does water vapor appear without CO2?
Why does the earth have water vapor in the first place? It’s because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states. Water vapor is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule constituting that 9 trillion tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
About 7% of total CO2 is from anthropogenic sources, the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor. Without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid. People who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place. Water vapor does not just magically appear.
.” Over the past 35 years of global warming, solar irradiance and climate have been on divergent trends. Furthermore, if the sun was responsible for global warming, we should see warming in the high atmosphere and the low atmosphere. Currently we are seeing warming only in the troposphere, below the level at which carbon dioxide settles. http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
Adrian, you are the one here that claims to know more than the smartest people in the world. Yet, you gave me no evidence, no links to what the scientific literature say.
You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at +400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because:
a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf
b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about “1/1316th the heating of water vapor or less than 0.1%” . You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.
You’re not the first one to try and triumph science with your gut feeling. Now this is either because the world’s climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to destroy capitalism, our freedom etc, or because they are honestly dealing with the evidence and concluding that ACC is real.
Back up your claims Adrian, or else you will continue to embarrass yourself.
Where did yo get that definition from?
Are you straw manning the definition of ‘greenhouse gas’?
It is original with me.
WOW, what an admission!
So, you made up your own definition of ‘greenhouse gas’ to support your own claim. That is a straw man Adrian.
But thanks for your honesty. Now we know that you don’t know what a greenhouse gas is. So, please stop claiming it does not exist.
No gas operates as a “greenhouse.” The only gas heating the atmosphere significantly is water vapor.
That’s your claim, but where is your evidence?
You did not answer my question.
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas then, given your claim “Water vapor does 99.9% of all atmospheric heating”?
How can Water vapor cause heating if it does not make a solid, clear cover?
Btw, nobody claims that gasses makes a solid, clear cover. We are talking about the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gasses, not a green plastic greenhouse in your back yard.
facepalm
What credentials do you have in climate change science, Adrian?
You know what credentials (published peer reviewed scientific journals, qualifications, citations) are?
Try this:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
You did not answer my question.
What credentials do you have in climate change science, Adrian?
You do know what credentials (published peer reviewed scientific journals, qualifications, citations) are?
Can an elected official be this ignorant of science? Or does Senator Markey
present the latest example of a cynical post-modernism that holds there
is no such thing as objective truth? Either way, if he and his alarmist allies
should prevail, we will all lose in the end.
Malarkey has been an idiot since the beginning of time. And, yes, he can be, and is, as ignorant as this about everything.
Today must be Opposite Day. Because the opposite of what you typie-typed is true.
Best,
D
It is incomprehensible that any human being could be as stupid as Markey. Of course just like virtually every other AGW idiot he has no scientific training or knowledge whatsoever. Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Markey, Sheldon Whitehouse, etc. all are simply imbeciles. The only people who are more stupid are those who believe them.
No Markey is not a climate scientist. So, what do you offer in the place of a consensus of experts that are activiely working and publishing the field? A consensus of ignorance?
The point is that it’s really, really stupid, if not suicidal, to completely ignore the overwhelming consensus of the publishing climate scientist on global warming and defer to right wing predatory capitalist – who are not climate scientists either.
What’s suicidal is to turn over the world economy to a bunch of government hacks because of some false unscientific theory.
Those capitalists, by the way, are not predatory and DO understand how economies work. It’s governments that are predatory. Governments increase their power by forcing people to do things. Capitalists get what they have by providing what people want so that the people will voluntarily buy it. You really need to straighten out your thinking.
You appear to be a dedicated right wing Predatory Capitalist, that wants to keep the public in the dark as to what the scientists are saying.
They don’t want to regulate things like polluters who will happily poison anyone and anything if it makes their share price go up a point in the next fiscal quarter. What they want to do is to continue to pass all those external costs on to the backs of the rest of us and keep the public misinformed.
Predatory Capitalism works on Wall Street. Deniers refuse to acknowledge it because they are defending their failed free market/laissez-faire ideology as accepting AGW implies that the market requires regulation because it failed to moderate our use of fossil fuels.
Frank Luntz loves people like you.
Revealed: The Chamber of Commerce Strategy to Kill Empathy of Its Members
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/04/revealed-chamber-commerce-strategy-kill-empathy-its-members
A. Capitalism succeeds everywhere it is embraced. it is the big government socialistic states that fail and fail consistently.
B. I’ll take the freedom to decide for myself over forced government action any day.
C. AGW is false, the science says so (science is correctly predicting outcomes which AGW IS NOT doing and never has done).
D. I don’t believe anyone cares about Frank Luntz or what he thinks.
E. It’s the big government countries that do most of the polluting.
… and on and on and on.
A. I am not opposed to capitalism. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between capitalism and Predatory capitalism.
What is it that the Crash of ʼ08, Global Warming, and Iraqistan and the rest of the sick, criminal bloodbaths America has created have in common? What is the single, indisputable force behind the perpetration of these horrors? It is not poor people, not bogus science, not bad religions, and not mysterious and unfathomable forces beyond human control.
It is Predatory Capitalism. And it must be eradicated and replaced by a system that nurtures, nourishes, and supports humanity and all life.
The taxpayers of the US have spent trillions of dollars subsidizing and fighting wars for access to fossil fuels. We’ve spent about one thousandth of that on climate research. If you’re all bent out of shape about paying energy related taxes, you should be all for the end of fossil fuels and the beginning of 21st Century energy technology. If you’re an idiot, you’ll be fighting to continue those oil wars and climate destruction. Are you an idiot?
B. In order for you or any other taxpayer to make informed decisions, you must, of course, be informed. These Predatory Capitalist companies not only produced false and/or misleading information for public consumption, they also made sure (through their lobbyists) that lawmakers and politicians were given the same misinformation. There used to be a certain amount of “trust” between those politicians and the companies. Not so any more.
C. Again. So, what do you offer in the place of a consensus of experts that are actively working and publishing in the field of climate science? A consensus of ignorance? A conspiracy that it is a hoax?
D. You may not care about Frank Luntz, but the Predatory Capitalist sure do.
E. Any country, regardless of type of government, that relies on fossil fuels for energy that produces the most pollution.
…and on and on…
Nonsense from start to finish.
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3432/6610/original.gif
Nonsense, all Government efforts in the climate scam is politically driven. The rules are simple: Push the CAWG mantra or don’t get paid (i.e. work).
#facepalm
When even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, and all credible scientific institutions in the world know your BS is BS, and at least 97% of publishing climate scientists know your BS is BS, and all other political parties in the world know your BS is BS, then all sane people recognize you and your ilk are disgusting warts on humanity, willing to do anything, even do people harm, just to cover the butts of your political ideology and corporate predatory capitalism.
Don’t blame the rest of us if your politics prevents you from accepting the advice of the scientific consensus. That’s your problem.
Blustering does not win any argument. The ugly truth about the CO2 climate scam is the inability to separate out any possible effects of human activity from natural variation. Captive organizations like Government agencies and Government funded entities lost all scientific credibility several years ago, starting with Climate Gate in 2007, which revealed data tampering and political intimidation – stuff that would have made Stalin and his Lysenkoism proud. The tables will turn.
Uh huh, sure sure. Conspiracy nuts like you have it easy. They can say whatever they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”.
Actually, your side is the one claiming AGW or CAGW. We are the ones saying “prove it” – that’s on you.
#facepalm There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That chart is good news for the green plants as there is a severe shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just ask the green plants as carbon is 42% of their dry mass and they have to capture it from air with water. If we would feed CO2 from underground we could reduce agricultural water needs by up to 94% and water is becoming the real problem as agriculture uses 80% of all our fresh water.
You can read all about this at my blogbook website, “Turning Carbon to Gold” at http://CO2Au.blogspot.com which is also a book at Amazon.com that documents my work and patents pending on systems in this area.
More time wasting spam of BS denier memes. You deluded whackjobs are behaving like 2 year olds still parroting thousand-times-falsified 20 year old right wing myths, memes and conspiracies and using many of the same right wing think tanks that were used to deny the dangers of tobacco.
Whatever you do never read or learn anything. I seriously doubt that you have ever been published or made contribution of any kind. I have offered you a free opportunity to read of my work, patent and patents pending for free and you do not dare to for fear of learning that you are wrong and have been every bit the fool you are seen to be here and now.
Conspiracy BS is not my thing. Go sell crazy somewhere else.
No conspiracy in my books. I leave that to your kind and only respond to it by putting it where it belongs: With the people who want to raise your taxes, get huge grants for which they do little to nothing. Much of academia is just as corrupt as Washington, DC, hence the high price and low value of “higher education.” The only thing “higher” is the price.
My site “Turning Carbon Into Gold” is all science and engineering, plus some exposition on patents and patenting, of value if you ever get a good idea. And, it is all free at http://CO2Au.blogspot.com
Jmac, you have here shown how shallow and uneducable you are. Who ties your shoes every day? Do you wear a bib all day to catch the drool?
#facepalm
So, what do you offer in the place of a consensus of experts that are actively working and publishing in the field? A consensus of ignorance?
Its not like the majority vote of the ignorant (and I include you here) should dictate any course of action of such an important magnitude. However, climate change deniers should not reach out to the public to pontificate political rhetoric, but should form an argument based on falsifiable evidence to convince the climate change experts. It just happens that the majority of climate change scientists hold the same position stating that ACC is not false. And you can’t even show me any scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC. Yet you, the ignorant, claim the experts got it wrong, but you refuse to tell us how you know this. All you have is your denialism and trying to make it a political issue.
Adrian, do you honestly think that insulting people would win them over to your denialism?
If so, then you are dumber than yo think.
Pathetic.
Are you a plant, Adrian?
What is the save level of CO2 for plants (the min and the max ppm)?
Does that apply to all plants?
What about animals, Adrian – What is the save level of CO2 (min and max ppm)?
Do you mean safe? If so it is anything below 160,000 ppm as that is our “inhale signal.”
You did not answer my questions Adrian.
1) Are you a plant, Adrian?
2) What is the save level of CO2 for plants (the min and the max ppm)?
3) Does that apply to all plants?
4) What about animals, Adrian – What is the save level of CO2 (min and max ppm)?
Citation? Where is the science of that?
So, a level of say 1,000 ppm, is that fine?
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6gm6t5zc
1,000 ppm causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity. At a concentration of CO2 at the level of 2500 ppm, the initiative and strategic thinking of the participants has declined to a dysfunctional level. Similarly impaired was the ability of the participants to use the available information and the breadth of approach.
Nonsense. Today’s production greenhouses all have supplemented CO2 up to 1600 ppm and they have no trouble with personnel. Most are closer to 1,000 ppm, but that is still a trace and of no significance.
You have not answered my questions, Adrian.
You did not answer my questions Adrian. We can go all day if you want. Making more outrageous claims and not citing any evidence for your claims are showing that you love your assertion fallacies.
1) Are you a plant, Adrian?
2) What is the save level of CO2 for plants (the min and the max ppm)?
3) Does that apply to all plants?
4) What about animals, Adrian – What is the save level of CO2 (min and max ppm)?
Citation? Where is the science of that?
So, a level of say 1,000 ppm, is that fine?
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6gm6t5zc
1,000 ppm causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity. At a concentration of CO2 at the level of 2500 ppm, the initiative and strategic thinking of the participants has declined to a dysfunctional level. Similarly impaired was the ability of the participants to use the available information and the breadth of approach.
When will you apologize for falsely accusing Michael Mann?
The problem is the connection between human activity and climate cannot be proven or tested. Besides, until the political climate changes, NASA has no credibility on the subject due to the political pressure exerted from above. The government-paid scientists must comply with far-left political edicts or find work elsewhere. History will view our time as the modern Dark Era of politically driven science (fiction).
Uh huh, evidence again seems to have gone missing.
Did I mention that conspiracy nuts like you are pure nutters. They say and repeat whatever crazy thing they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”.
No connection…Really…You are blind…The evidence is everywhere…People like you make me sick…
AGW has been in the news for 25 years now. Why haven’t you bothered to read about the evidence yourself?
CAGW! Drink!
Best,
D
What makes you think this is a sport with two sides?
I guess you can call it a sport if you like. I call it a modern tragedy of wasted time, money and careers chasing the fraud of AGW.
You did not answer my question.
What makes you think this is a sport with two sides?
You claim:
How ironic, you just admitted that your climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to your ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
Have you chekced the evidence for man made climate change?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest. I’m glad many countries have initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?
What is AGW?
Your straw man?
AGW? Is that Anthropogenic Global Warming? It’s not humans causing warming baby, it is CO2, deforestation, etc. It is mostly our activities, not us, Sam. What the science says is *The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.*
Likewise, the term “global warming” is somewhat problematic as well since the planet isn’t warming uniformly—a few places have a short-lived cooling trends—and the word “warming” sounds downright cozy on a cold day, when, in fact, substantially heating of the atmosphere and ocean is happening.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is your crank theory, your straw man. It does not exist.
That is earth is heating up is settled, it is a scientific fact – state of things as they are, or appear to be.
Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) is settled, it is a scientific theory – a well-substantiated explanation of scientific facts and what causes it and have predictive power, in that we use to predict certain aspects of reality supported by falsifiable evidence.
Settled in science means scientific knowledge is filed and consensus emerged, not absolute certainty but “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”.
To say that science can never come to any conclusions, that we can never reasonably settle any question, is to give up on the entire scientific adventure of understanding the natural world. That is to reject all scientific knowledge that we have filed over the last ~500 years. If we can never know anything, what’s the point of investigating, of science? Saying that the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is not settled is arguing that scientific theories do not exist. Saying that the ‘earth is warming’ is not settled is arguing that scientific facts do not exist.
Senator Markey, jmac and Dano are all members of the same science-stunted tribe who actually believe that a tax can change the weather.
They’re irrational and delusional.
Brave guy can’t refute a single letter of anything I type, so it runs away and yells inanities from afar.
Brave!
Best,
D
Look who’s talking. Lol!
“The ugly truth about the CO2 climate scam is the inability to separate out any possible effects of human activity from natural variation.”
The ocean is gaining huge amounts of heat, year after year.
What is the source of this heat?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/467c1f3b9e8ad0c53927234cbf5c9ae448e153d37b1786abe3b3f4ada411252f.png
This chart has been declared false and is now the subject of a Congressional inquiry and perhaps investigation
False. Wrong. Confused.
Try again.
You don’t even know what Lamar Smith’s is contending.
It’s not ocean heat content….
Typical.
How is that you know what other people know and think? Do you realize how presumptuous you are?
In your defense, all of that has probably not been mentioned on right wing denier blogs. /sarc
The two “97%” studies by Naomi Oreskes of Scripps Inst. and Doran-Zimmerman of U of I, Chicago, have been discredited as Naomi used undergrads and represented her study as “complete” when it only examend 971 of the 12,000 journal articles written and she had instructed her students to disregard anyone denying AGW. Doran-Zimmernan could not prove they had surveyed the entire American Geophysical Union membership of 10,625, which would have cost $15,000 to $20,000 for printing, mailing, postage, return covers and postage, but only had records of 100 pieces mailed, all who had hiring responsiblity. Ms. Zimmerman was looking for a job. Again, a total fraud.
Nope. Surveys of scientists or studies reporting this not to be the case either conflate experts with non-experts or falsely equate a “no position” stance with denial or uncertainty, the new meta-survey shows. One survey of economic geologists, for example, found only a 47 percent consensus. But that’s a pretty meaningless result, because if Ben Carson taught us anything, it’s that someone can be a smart, well-respected expert in one field and a complete idiot in another.
“Conflate” is not a word, it is undefined, like your entire response. What I have here reported is true and verifiable. “97% of all scientists….” is bullshit.
What do “economic geologists,” a specialty undefined in academia and a fanstasy of your dimentia, have to say in this regard? Nothing as they do not exist and the issue is not economic, save the money you and your ilk seek from the taxpayers of America.
Ben Carson ran on a ticket of integrity, something you clearly know nothing about. You are a classic Democrat.
#facepalm conflate is a word.
con·flate
kənˈflāt/Submit
verb
combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
“the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic and social issues”
synonyms: mix, blend, fuse, unite, integrate
“the plot gets weighed down when the writers conflate too many issues into one episode”
As to CONSENSUS:
97% of climate scientists that are actively working and publishing in the field. That 97% figure is based on an assessment of peer reviewed literature, not a populist vote.
But the 97% statistic comes from several different approaches and has been published in 6 peer reviewed articles. By now it’s out of date, as over 99% of recent scientific articles support the scientific understanding of climate change.
There are surveys of scientists, and other surveys of scientific literature. The 99.997 figure is about scientific literature.
About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/
Obviously I couldn’t be a republican.
“Facepalm” is not a recognized dictionary. “Conflate” is nonsense. We inflate or deflate we do not “conflate.”
The two studies declaring “97% of all climate scientists,” or climate papers, etc., the Oreskes and Doran-Zimmerman have been refuted and discredited. Only liars like Barack Obama, of “If you like your doctor….” fame, quote this fraud.
#facepalm Answered earlier
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/democrat_senator_markey_must_win_climate_8216crusade8230_or_we8217re_going_to_exterminate_each_other/#comment-2703472790
Answered earlier.
http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2016/04/05/democrat-senator-markey-must-win-climate-crusade-or-were-going-to-exterminate-each-other/#comment-2703472790
Good grief… there is a book that most children learn about; been around for two and a half centuries.And the American version for two….
Start here:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/conflate
OR go to the library.
” “Conflate” is nonsense. We inflate or deflate we do not “conflate.” ”
Wrong on both scores. Facepalm is not an accepted dictionary. The “97%” myth had two sources: Naomi Oreskes study and the Doran-Zimmerman study. Both are discredited.
#facepalm
“If the consensus were 97%, then if you read, say, 300 peer-reviewed articles you should find on average 9 that reject AGW. Instead, to find even a single rejecting article, you must read nearly 5,000. (Try this yourself with a random selection of 300 peer-reviewed articles here.) The true consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%. ” http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html
Or for your amusement a study just published 9-24-2015. Purdue study: Climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/purdue-study-climate-change-consensus-extends-beyond-climate-scientists.html
https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2015/prokopy-climate.jpg
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Or, we could look at IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM
Or, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/
Or http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl…
Or http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/
Or http://www.who.int/topics/climate/en/
Or, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists
This can only be ignored at this point if you completely ignore physics and become “anti science”.
That’s what’s known as “converging lines of evidence”. When multiple reliable sources of information all say the same thing, it’s much more likely to be true.
If A.V. tried this at any academic level, there’d be a note attached when the paper was returned…
Yes, it would. But he is too unaware to even know it. 🙂
A near classic example of the science of denialism.The assertion and your response are classic!
And, you are on the Internet. On a computer. Any thought at all of opening a new window and doing a search?
Or calling the local library? Or a Geology dept.?
“…undefined in academia and a fanstasy of your dimentia,…”
http://www.segweb.org/
Does Ben Carson Suspect His Campaign Was a Scam?
“We had people who didn’t really seem to understand finances,” he said. “Or maybe they did—maybe they were doing it on purpose.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/ben-carson-thinks-maybe-his-campaign-was-a-scam/470715/
“Examend” is not a word in the English language. “Dimentia” is also not a word. Conflate IS a word, which you should learn. But wait; you claim to be a widely published author?! Wow…
Tip for the author: when you are typing comments in these boxes, and the word you type shows up underlined in red, that often means that you failed the spellcheck; i.e., the word you typed is either misspelled or is not a word. You’re welcome….
Unfortunately, Disqus does not provide fact check or logic check features; if it did, you could avoid a lot of embarrassment with the appallingly fallacious stuff you post here.
Economic geologists do not exist?! Here, tell the Society of Economic Geologists, founded in 1920:
https://www.segweb.org/SEG/Publications/Economic_Geology/SEG/_Publications/Economic_Geology_Overview.aspx
Really, man; have you no shame?!
By who? Where?
“have been discredited”
J.H.C., I’ve read novels that have more footnotes than your writing….
I have a full name, degree, 800+ publications, awards, patent and many filings, put mathematical proofs in my postings. You have nothing but angry invective. Who do you think will receive more belief?
+
It is a conspiracy, not a consensus as they all know it is BS and justify it
by “Money for science!” as they all feel neglected for not being lauded for
their superior intellect. You have no idea the arrogance of these people. Both my parents were college professors and I grew up with these folks. I know them well.
Conspiracy nuts like you have it easy. They can say whatever they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”.
Sir: I have put all the facts in my book “Vapor Tiger” and I here speak with the authority of providing many pages of facts, records and citations. You have none and your accusation only documents your ignorance. Understand that the people I here accuse want your money as well as mine. From them you get lies and wild claims. I prove what I say and you can see it all for $2.99 at Amazon.com I am a well-known, much published author as I have documented above. What are you?
And no peer reviewed science. Just more time wasting spam of BS denier memes. You deluded whackjobs are behaving like 2 year olds still parroting thousand-times-falsified 20 year old right wing myths, memes and conspiracies and using many of the same right wing think tanks that were used to deny the dangers of tobacco.
Meanwhile the effects and evidence of climate change are simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world.
Really – it’s time for you losers to just STFU and GET OUT OF THE WAY while the grown ups try to clean up your mess for you.
There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences
Climate Change Evidence & Causes
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
Followed by 36 pages of basic points and evidence.
Nonesense: The facts are amazingly simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Somebody alert the scientists./sarc
Nonsense on steroids. Since it is well documented that CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 280 PPM to >400 PPM in the last few decades, you’re claiming that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has gone down by ~45%?!?! And you can’t see that that is laughably wrong?! What a charlatan.Clearly there is something wrong with your “equation”, (not to mention your logic, your assumptions, etc.) You posit that Kt is a “constant”, when it clearly is not.
P.S. You misspelled “nonsense”.
You are not a climate change scientists.
You admitted to me that you are in denial of climate change science.
That renders your credibility a vacuum of ignorance, born in delusion.
Doddering old fool …… typical ideological eco-freak that only the Democratic party can shoot up against a brick wall and the sun hatches them.
AGW is complete and utter nonsense.
AGW is complete and utter nonsense.
You cannot show you invented a NewPhysics that explains the observed changes and demonstrates that reg’lur fizzix works everywhere in the universe but on earth.
HTH
Best,
D
It has never been about “new” physics but is about very old established physical laws – AGW violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
It’s really that simple. So I can categorically say that AGW is complete claptrap with no basis in science….. it is a religious belief.
So I can categorically say that AGW is complete claptrap with no basis in science….. it is a religious belief.
You can say whatever you want, but tens of thousands of papers over a century and a half refute you.
Best,
D
lol
What you say is nonsense….. 10’s of thousands of papers !!!……BS, Dano2….. when most of those papers are looked at (not by the quacks, Cook and Oreskes), they turn out to not present clear positions on AGW at all. Until recently there were very few papers on so-called “climatology”, our new age name for this patent nonsense. It has more in common with cosmetology than with hard core physics. Nevertheless and even in the face of your clearly ideological “progressive” resistance, (at 65,000 comments ?? Do you have a day job ??) I know that what I am saying is 100% correct. Scientific ignorance seems to be a potent and prevalent disease amongst the American Left.
My statement towers over all your BS that AGW is complete and utter nonsense. Truth always wins out in the long run.
You poor thing. There have been almost two hundred years of studies. Across the world.
Educate yourself. Start here. Then go here and see for yourself. You can do it! Go you!
Best,
D
HA HA HA HA you are such a fool…… Ciao…… go talk to your other liberal nerds
Almost two hundred years. Your clowning and buffooning and cannot hide it. Nor can your clowning and buffooning hide the links I gave you to educate yourself.
Your clowning and buffooning, however, indicate your level of willingness to educate yourself. You choose to remain a buffoon.
Best,
D
You lefties will always miss the REAL point…… I am thoroughly educated in Physics…. I am one of the people that WRITES scientific papers. I do not need to quote other peoples’ work because I am capable of directing, editing and correcting their work. My opinion does not need the support of others that you and the lawyer Markey desperately need….. I actually understand thermodynamics having studied it for many years…… AGW is complete and utter GARBAGE. All the work that purports to prove it is basically flawed and inferior work product….. the authors are either on the government feed bag, poorly educated or want to be in the “in” crowd.
You were refuted.
You can’t hide it, thanks!
Best,
D
HA HA HA….. what refutation ? Some weird collection of papers that are simply wrong.
There is nothing to hide Dano…. I am right and you are dead wrong….. I dont think anyone would call that statement hiding.
Best,
P
More buffooning.
You’re no PhD. Unless you are a Doctorate in Clown.
Best,
D
I am very much a PhD in Physics…. and what are you, other than an empty-headed serial leftie commentator with no scientific background.
Best
P
I’m the one that refuted you.
You are dismissed.
Best,
D
HA HA HA HA do I sense the aggravation inside your small little mind HA HA HA HA
Glad I could kick your unscientific butt, you boob.
Go to http://worldcat.org and input “Adrian Vance” to the search routine and see 614 publications I have done for all the largest educational publishers in this nation and the UK. And, this is only 3/4 of my work which includes over 800 copyrighted pieces. Again, I ask for the institution granting your degree and the title and library where your thesis is filed and/or published. Failure to do that will confirm you are a fraud.
Um, lets see.. I’ll go out on a limb here and say your PhD outranks Dano’s high school diploma.
Just a guess.
Sir: It would be very helpful if you gave your name, institution granting your degree, title of your thesis and where it was filed and/or published, a name or two of your published papers and their publishers, but in any case the facts of the matter are very simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
If you understood real science Ad, you would not be bringing a knife to a gun fight HA HA HA HA Le Chatelier’s principle ….. What irrelevant nonsense. Are there people that actually believe you know anything about your AGW nonsensical beliefs…… Just another irresponsible writer !!!
The Le Chatelier Principle controls the atmosphere. The Navier Stokes equation you have cited is only for viscous fluids, which the atmosphere, being gases, is not. You are a fraud.
Am traveling on business BUT Adrian you clearly have ZERO knowledge in Physics….. A “fluid” is defined as a liquid or a gas….. The Navier-Stokes equation is way beyond your competence level. Stop throwing around statements that you clearly can not make given your incompetence.
University awarding your degree? Library where your thesis was filed or published. Current post, title and status, awards, publications, all stuff we can verify, as I will having exposed numerous fakes like you appear to be. It only takes a few phone calls…
You seem to be a little lop sided Ad Vance ….. Give your credentials …. you are the challenger …. You would appear to be a chemist….. If you were a physicist (the more fundamental science) and not taking Government research money ( if you really are a credentialed scientist which I sincerely doubt) to be pro AGW you would know that AGW is false based on the first two laws of thermodynamics. Very simple but clearly above your pay grade.
Well well if we can believe your posting, you are a writer and producer ?????? And what makes you think you can challenge anyone who understands the actual science. The media are the very people who are arrogant enough to think they can repeat science that they don’t even understand. Le Chatelier’s principle HA HA HA HA HA HA.
What a sad fool you are…. No real basis to say anything in this forum.
Ah you expose fakes with your writing and producing. What a truly shallow character you are. You don’t understand the science but decide that you can expose anyone in science.
I might believe you if you exposed that “Dreams of My Father” was written by Bill Ayers. Or that the “Audacity of Hope” was written poorly by Jon Favreau. But in science Ad, you are simply out of your league….. Just another useful idiot of the left.
One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.
I accept the findings of ACC.
You claim that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is false. Care to provide me with your url link pointing to your published peer reviewed scientific journal that falsifies ACC?
I cant help but laugh at you “simple john”….. you say above that you dont “require credentials to understand….findings”…… this is blatant nonsense….. if you dont understand Fourier’s heat theory and all of the thermodynamics that have been developed since 1827, you absolutely have no standing in any debate about AGW.
If you have no credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) in particle physics then you will not be taken seriously if you claim that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is false.
One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.
Translated in your pigeon language :
I don’t have to be an evolutionary biologist to accept the scientific theory of evolution (species came about via natural selection, mutation, migration (gene flow), and genetic drift).
I don’t have to be a cosmologist to accept the scientific fact that the earth goes around the sun.
I don’t have to be a theoretical physicist to accept the scientific theories of the Big Bang and General Relativity.
I don’t have to be a publised climate change scientist to accept the scientific theories of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) and the Greenhouse Effect.
However, you do need credentials (which include qualifications, scientific publications, and citations) in in a field of science to meaningful challenge it (the findings and scientific knowledge).
You do need to be a publised climate change scientist to meaningful challenge the scientific theory of ACC, the scientific theory of the greenhouse effect, and the scientific fact of a heating (surface and ocean) earth.
Now, big boy, read this slowly.
You accept that the earth is warming up, besides rejecting the temp databases which includes your denier datasets.
You don’t accept ACC. What credentials do you have to meaningful challenge ACC?
I’m well qualified in physics and chemistry. But I’m not climate change scientist, nor will I claim to have any credentials in it.
Can you now present your credentials in climate change science (if you want me to take you seriously)? We both know you have none. Yet you claim that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, and that you (some anonymous Disqus user) got it right. Yet you refuse to tell us how you know you got it right or to share your credentials. You’re not very smart at all.
Predictions. You will once again not answer my question. But you will offer more logical assertion fallacies to show how your reasoning failed. And you will cement that with vomiting an insult. Are you happy with that?
Of all your statements this one is the most outlandish….. if you dont have the background in a subject, of what use is your unschooled opinion ?
Take Darwinism….. this is so wrong headed…. the invariant scaling laws of biota (fourth power NOT third power !!), and non-genomic nativism can absolutely not have originated in natural selection, so you are accepting a flawed system of logic because you do not know any better.
The Earth going around the Sun is not Cosmology. The Earth (in fact) executes a slightly chaotic roughly elliptical orbit around the Sun. Clearly your understanding is grade 1 level.
The Big Bang theory is just that….. a theory. There are ,many competing cosmological models …. right now the BBT has the edge BUT we absolutely can NOT say that this theory is correct.
General Relativity is incomplete. It is arguably the most brilliant development of the 20th century. Einstein wrote a paper with an escaped Jew (Mayer)….. but Einstein missed the full meaning of this paper. It leads to an amazing generalization of “General Relativity” to naturally include Maxwell’s equations. So how can you state that you “accept” this scientific theory.
The whole concept of “acceptance” of theories that you dont understand is incredibly pompous and full of hubris. If you dont understand a subject, of what real use is your “acceptance”.
And so it is with AGW – you dont know the first thing about Thermodynamics, Navier- Stokes equations, radiation transfer or the chemistry of CO2 (and so on), why would anyone listen to your empty BS.
So, you prefer to live up to my predictions. You did not answer any of my questions.
Thanks for conceding with your insults. Sadly, your pathetic insults do not work on me, denier.
Again, what credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) do you gave in climate change science?
We both know you have none. Yet you claim that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, and that you (some anonymous Disqus user) got it right. Yet you refuse to tell us how you know you got it right. You’re not very smart at all.
This is about you greed. You don’t fear the tax, you fear the political and economical implications of climate science on your greedy life style. You want a completely free open market, you want unlimited growth from limited resources. And any regulation of that should be stopped at all cost to protect your greedy lifestyle.
There is a well known phenomenon calked crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets. Is there a crank theory that you do not believe?
Please live up to my predictions again. We both know that you can’t change the science. This is not about the science, it’s about your selfish greed.
As I said you are a true fool….. just a “useful idiot” of the Left parroting what you have never understood. Bye now !! Got to sign off. It was fun. But i have to go deal with the more adult in our society.
You lived up to my predictions again.
“The Voyage of the Beagle” and the theory of evolution are much more an exercise in the collection and interpretation of statistics than science. Naturalists are not scientists where they cannot perform experiments. Simililarly, physicians are not “Men of science.” They are men of practice.
There’s a well known phenomenon called “crank magnetism” — cranks seem to attract lots of cranky ideas just like a magnet.
Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
Much of what is written about “climate science” is false and done to get grants by pleasing the corrupt Administration and Congress who only want more of our money. The facts are very simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Get a real job Dano2 …. You will be much happier. !
You claim:
Now, show your work.
Or go back to physics school.
We both know your next move.
Now “show your work” ????? Bizarre ! You have some sort of belief that you are “in charge” ….. this is a very common trait amongst liberals
and other “progressives” (really regressives). You are a funny little man. I think a few sessions with a psychiatrist are in order.
Yes, as expected. You’re so predictable. Remember you showed us that in the temp datadases thread. You accepted that the earth is warming.
Yep, you claimed that AGW violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. But you completely forgot to cite any scientific journals to back your ridiculous claim up. In fact, now now refuse to do it. You are now claimig that you insults and intellectual vapidness is that evidence for your ridiculous claim.
Dude, your insults doesn’t work on me.
Show your work, defend your ridiculous claims, cite your sources.
Want me to make another prediction about you?
Well “simple john” I think we should start with English….. I quote from you above: “claimig that you insults”……. “your insults doesn’t”
HA HA HA HA…. got you slobbering your poor English all over the place HA HA HA HA….embarrassing !
Oh…. and I love that you are a “seer” with “predictions” and all that new age stuff. You need help “simple john”
You are distinctly “low hanging fruit” on the wisdom tree HA HA HA HA
You have not answered my question.
You’re so predictable. You can’t even get your own insult and yhr English correct.
It is:
You are now claimig that your insults and intellectual vapidness is that evidence for your ridiculous claim.
Oh, the irony.
Your insults do not work on me. I know that you’re only offering them because your reasoning failed.
Oh, the irony.
You should not type words in capitals, nor repeat them. That not only shows your lack of English grammar skills, but also that you find if difficult to express yourself. I bet your friends and family also comment on your proficiency in incoherence.
Can you present your falsifiable evidence to support your claim that AGW violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics?
If you don’t then I’ll accept your retraction of that ridiculous claim.
Predictions. You will once again not answer my question. But you will offer more logical assertion fallacies to show how your reasoning failed. And you will cement that with vomiting an insult. Are you happy with that?
You need psychiatric help, Johnnie boy HA HA HA HA
“Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here !”
Idiot Markey is an uninformed lawyer selling the Obummer political religion to naifs in the American public (of whom, you are one, simple John !)
AGW is total and utter pseudo-scientific nonsense….. a hoax on the American public.
Thank you for conceding with your insult. Thank you for living up to my predictions! You did not answer my question, but you did vomit an insult. Ironically, you are happy with that!
Your insults do not work on me, denier.
“Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here !”
Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.
Seriously, do you think your pathetic insults will convert me to your cult? Gee man, you’re dumber than I thought.
Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between rejection of climate change and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
Predictions. You will once again not answer my questions. But you will offer more logical assertion fallacies to show how your reasoning failed. And you will cement that with vomiting an insult. Are you happy with that?
Do it again, I dare you. Live up to my prediction again. At least you are predictable! That, in itself, is progress of some kind!
Do it.
This is so much fun…… pulling your wings off and watching you get angry and petty HA HA HA HA You are a true liberal fool johnnie boy.
You need to use some fresh ideas …. “irony” ?
Sorry I haven’t had time to tease you some more as I am busy actually working. Working on Hodge duals in Maxwell’s Electromagnetic theory. John, you are so out of your league that you should consider a job at Home Depot as a step up from being a serial AGW commentator ….. there are a number of you guys (e.g. Dano2, ecofreak etc). All you guys have time to do is defend a theory that is blatantly false and a hoax on the American public. Looking forward to your next rant. Really funny stuff….. I bet you are red faced when you are typing your replies HA HA HA HA HA What a fool !!
Thank you for conceding with your insult, again. Thank you for living up to my predictions! You did not answer my questions, but you did vomit insults. Ironically, you are happy with that!
Your insults do not work on me, denier.
Prediction. You will once again not answer my questions. But you will offer more logical assertion fallacies to show how your reasoning failed. And you will cement that with vomiting an insult. Are you happy with that?
Do it again, I dare you. Live up to my prediction again. At least you are predictable! That, in itself, is progress of some kind!
Do it.
HA HA HA sorry but no concession is made…. you are a riot !!
I’m a riot?
Your insults do not work on me, denier.
You are still living up to my predictions, still not answering my questions.
And you are gapoy abouf ut, hey!
That’s because your resoning failed you.
WUWT – do you really get your scientific information from that pseudo science website? You know, normal people would reject it, but not you hey.
Prediction. You will once again not answer my questions. But you will offer more logical assertion fallacies to show how your reasoning failed. And you will cement that with vomiting an insult. Are you happy with that?
Do it again, I dare you. Live up to my prediction again. At least you are predictable! That, in itself, is progress of some kind!
Do it.
And you are gapoy abouf ut, hey!
That’s because your resoning failed you.
Got you jabbering nonsense again….. well it was a riot but I have to move on to other productive work. Ciao boobus erectus.
You’re reasoning failed you. That is why you are predictable.
Do you deny being in denial?
Why are your insults allowed?
Do you want to get banned?
Fine.
Can you now present your falsifiable evidence to support your claim that AGW violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics?
We both know you have none.
Yet you claim that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, and that you (some anonymous Disqus user) got it right. Yet you refuse to tell us how you know you got it right or to share your credentials. You’re not very smart at all.
So no you are practicing medicine without a license to go along with claiming a non-existent Ph.D.? There are states where that is a felony. You should be sure you are not living in one.
HA HA HA poor vitriol Ad Vance…. You invoke the standard leftie technique of ad hominem attacks when you are out of your league. I just went over to my PhD diploma and gave it a polish HA HA HA. You should go back to your dark unhappy Malthusian world – seek sunshine and maybe your foreboding fantasy world of global warming will clear away like the nonsensical dream that it is. AGW is complete and utter nonsense.
If you do not understand Le Chatelier then you are no physical scientist. Name the institution that awarded your degree, the title of your thesis, your name, where said thesis is filed and I will make the phone calls to confirm. I have exposed several jerks like you so put up or cave in.
What’s weird about this conversation is that I agree with your notion that AGW is nonsense BUT please stop quoting Chemistry and Le Chatelier’s principle which is about concentrations re-establishing equilibrium after changes to either concentrations or physical changes (eg temperature change etc). This is about Physics NOT Chemistry. You do not have the background to discuss detail in this topic.
Again I agree with you that AGW is complete nonsense but your reasoning is not correct.
It looks like you have been reading Wikipedia again and I repeat: If you do not know that the Le Chatelier Principle has as much to do with the physics of gases as it does ions in solution then you are ignorant of physics.
I repeat: Post your name, institution where you received your Ph.D., the title of you thesis and where it was filed and/or published. I will make the phone calls to confirm. I was raised in academia by two college professors, was a Chemistry major and one course short of a minor in physics. My reasoning is correct.
Adrian, I don’t care who raised you, you do not know what you are talking about……Le Chatelier’s principle is irrelevant to AGW. You hurt the cause of shooting down this AGW NONSENSE by quoting an irrelevant Chemistry principle. AGW violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. My degree is real and I do know all about Le Chatelier’s principle.
The fact that you do not understand what the Navier Stokes equations are, tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge level. And the fact that you do not realize that a fluid is defined as a liquid or a gas says you need to drop out of any scientific discussion on AGW.
You are confessing your ignorance of the atmosphere if you deny the Le Chateleier Principle. Navier-Stokes applies to “viscous fluids” by definition, those in which Van der Valls forces apply, so you again demonstrate your ignorance and that you are a fraud. Put up your full name, institution granting your degree, the year, title of your thesis and where it was filed and/or published or go away in the shame you richly deserve.
Adrian talking to you is like parallel play with a child. I know EXACTLY what Le Chatelier’s principle is AND where to apply it ….. It is irrelevant to the AGW discussion.
Point two is that the Navier Stokes equations COVER all of the physics of the atmosphere and are the ONLY valid physics to discuss.
Point three, it’s Van der Waals forces that you are struggling to mention.
I won’t be commenting on any more of your ignorant statements. You do not have the necessary background to discuss the dearth of science in the AGW crowd. You only help their cause by stating incorrect arguments that make it obvious to anyone educated in science reading these comments, that you are a rank amateur.
Ciao, over and out Ad
Read my last and final answer to you above…… Do the same thing, every time you prattle on about what you clearly do not understand
Anyone who reads much on Navier-Stokes and then Le Chatelier, as applied to gases, will quickly see that you are a phony.
I covered Navier Stokes equation and Euler’s equations when I studied Morse and Feshbach…… Then later under tensor calculus and later again under my chaos studies. I am a master of setting up theoretical models. I find it hilarious that someone who does not know the definition of a fluid would have the naïveté to challenge my vast knowledge of Physics and Chemistry.
You are an arrogant twit ….. I was trying to stay nice but your hubris is bizarre.
“Anyone who reads Navier Stokes….” I first covered Navier Stokes 40 years ago while learning theory from Morse and Feshbach. Again when we derived it using both the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms. Covered it again when learning tensor calculus and differential geometry. It showed up again in my courses on Chaos Theory when discussing how NS can lead into turbulence etc.
I studied Le Chatelier’s principle in my Chemistry classes. It was very simple.
In other words, I know more about these subjects than lay people like yourself,
Your arrogance in your pseudo-intellectual hubris is breath taking.
Go beat up “John” and “Dano2” etc…… You are so far out of your league with me that I can’t help but laugh at you. You agree with my premise but fight my credentials.
The only word that comes to mind is BIZARRE.
Wow a real psychic…..
Yep, you’re predictable.
Knew you would be sitting by your computer waiting on reply HA HA HA HA HA…….and you say I am predictable HA HA HA HA…..go look in a mirror Johnnie boy HA HA HA HA
Go beat up “Adrian” …… You guys are like dog sh’t, we can’t seem to get it off our shoe HA HA HA BUT I should feel flattered to have an audience even if they are not too bright.
Don’t you have anything intelligent to say?
Only to an intelligent person.
So, you made another dumb statement again.
Yes brilliance is blinding to a simpleton like you. Get a job. Do something – anything – but offer your truly stupid brain dead opinions on the nonsense known as AGW
Thanks for conceding with your insults.
The relationship is very simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Try some good, old-fashioned physics:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Wrong Ad Vance …. Chemical concentrations have nothing to do with Thermodynamics of gases…. You are out of your depth….. The fundamental equation of fluid thermodynamics is the Navier Stokes equation. You are chemist but need to be a physicist.
Look, religion (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Citing pseudo rubbish to defend your greed seems odd though.
And your “pseudo-unreviewed politics” were denialist claptrap.
Tell me about your greed and your other crank theories.
It might be handy if Markey would read observed temperatures for the last 50 years. They haven’t gone up. He might, I say MIGHT, realize he is just an old fool spouting garbage. Oh, that’s right, he’s a democrat, he will never believe the truth if it hits him in the face. WHat he is spewing isn’t about climate, it is about control of the people, just like his buddies, the Castro brothers.
observed temperatures for the last 50 years. They haven’t gone up
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Good comedy! I LOLzed!
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ac36e2dcb87c38c55610abcef29e407c7713f5ad01feb019752d77f8d0f2693.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/270d214ff42a479c667480b3033d31f09fa33bc4bee8ed85fe79709b7efb18ff.png
Oops, you forgot to throw out jimmied data. Are you merely accepting of fraudulent data, or do you prefer it? Why does your surface temp chart only go back to the apex of the LIA?
Cherry picker.
Weak flail to hide weak lie.
Best,
D
Ah, you do prefer fraudulent data.
Weaker flail. Can’t you do any better than this LoInfo fare?
Best,
D
dear frauder in heaven – drano is at the altar begging for more. Hallowed be thine eraser. Thy models runneth over.
Weakest weak flail. You can’t
topbottom this weak flail.Best,
D
Better add yet another “weak” to your reply. Makes it so much better.
You’re just sore everyone knows your religion.
You failed again.
You failed to notice this is a 2 month old thread and nobody cares.
Yet you replied. You’re a troll.
Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:
BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat
NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014
UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.
Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1985 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.
Thanks for the effort but I’m well aware of the data.
I didn’t say the data diddling changed the nature of the slopes – they simply went from positive to more positive in order to prove a point. A slope of 2.0 appears much more dramatic to a casual observer than a slope of 1.8 given the appropriate (make that inappropriate) axis scaling.
The continuation of a positive slope simply reassures one that we are, in fact, hurtling ever farther from the last great ice age. Yes, 1862 was warmer than 1861 just as 1350 was warmer than 1349.
Unfortunately this phenomenon does not in any way make a statement in regards to the anthropogenesis of climate change.
A careful observer should have grown weary of the agencies (which you listed) continual rough and tumble play with data which should by all regards be sacrosanct.
Ok, you agree that the earth is warming up according to the data, the slope is going up.
That contradicts what you tried to defend:
Seems like you are the cherry picker.
Now, pay attention:
Given that you agree with the data, that the earth is heating up, what is the cause? And don’t forget to cite your scientific source to support your claim.
I’m not the denier here – you are.
You’d like the think temps have been consistent over the last few millennia and only man can change them. Mike Mann and his hockey stick have made you complacent. That’s what happens when historical bases are homogenized and people are led to believe there was no prior fluctuation. Or, when you’re just plain gullible. My guess is indoctrination has taken it’s toll.
You might note the satellite boys aren’t changing raw data, but rather adjusting it to account for well documented collection error. Your boys are changing the raw data and THEN adjusting to suit their needs. The methodology has been destroyed to protect the guilty.
When you remove the diddling, and the homogenization, and utilize only the pristine USCRN data not subject to UHI and other land-use issues, it becomes clear there has been warming (with fluctuation) at the same slope and fluctuation as before.
Stop denying natural climate change.
Just a warning – this is a very old post and I’m no longer interested so your continued pleas for attention will be ignored.
Denier, you did not answer my question.
Given that you agree with the data, that the earth is heating up, what is the cause? And don’t forget to cite your scientific source to support your claim.
I suspect that your quick departure will now follow given that you have some homework to do.
Show me wrong.
***I’m applying thd torque now***
Or will you run away… with your tail between your legs. .
You have not responded to my post below.
Denier, you did not answer my question.
Given that you agree with the data, that the earth is heating up, what is the cause? And don’t forget to cite your scientific source to support your claim.
I suspect that your quick departure will now follow given that you have some homework to do.
Show me wrong.
***I’m applying the torque now, do you feel it?***
Or will you run away… with your tail between your legs. .
Fine, but these sources are not themselves factual. They were done for money, grants, etc.
I will hold you to that. Geck it.
How do you know that Adrian? Are you accusing these people of fraud? That is quite a claim, can you back that up?
UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer, were done for grants too, is a fraud too?
FINE?
So did you check the datasets, the UAH one is from your camp, the deniers? What does it say? Warming or not?
UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer, were done for grants too, is a fraud too?
These graphs are false and they have been admitted to as manipulated with selected data that should not be used. They are now under investigation by a committee of Congress.
You made this up: they have been admitted to as manipulated with selected data
You can’t show it’s true.
You can’t show this is true either: They are now under investigation by a committee of Congress.
Big fibbin
Best,
D
The Committee is The Joint Committee of the House and Senate on Science and Technology. Note of it is in their “2015 Transactions.” You can do the slogging….
You can’t show it is true. We get it.
Best,
D
More appeal to assertion from Adrian, the denier crank theorist troll liar.
Not only are you a coward without a name, but you are lazy. That chart has been falsified and the subject of an issue exposed in testimony to the Joint House and Senate Committee on Science and Technology and you can look it up as should I you only again accuse me of lying when I am trying to save your butt. This issue could very well turn America into another India.
Adrian, your insults do not work on me. You may want to try to get that through your thick scull.
Where is your Nobel prize for falsifying ACC? Where is it? It’s not been awarded, because unlike what you just claimed, nobody has been abke to falsify ACC.
Don’t forget, you’re a troll and a liar.
I think they underestimate our desire to exterminate them…..
Stop promoting treason.
The guy whose bill I accidentally pronounced “Wackey-Marxman” speaks again….I must say the title was more fitting than Markey-Waxman. I thought he’d left DC…unfortunately not.
No, there remain free men to be subjugated into citizens even yet. His job isn’t quite done.
Apparently 🙁
Shorter Markey: We socialists are running out of other people’s money!
There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
….and they all assume (fraudulently) that there has been no variation in the past.
What does that even mean?
It means it is arm-waving to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.
Best,
D
What does that mean?
.
Youl love your crank theories hey?
My only quote from Margaret Thatcher…. “the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples money to spend.”
Here’s another:
1989 –
1989 – even I wrote a speech for the general outlining the numerous tragedies inherent in a world warmed by CO2. Had to talk the general into using it.
I believe the mark of a man is his ability to admit when he is wrong, and brother, was I ever wrong.
Here’s your task to make all us skeptics believers. Prove:
a) CO2 is a significant contributor – you haven’t. b) Natural CC is not a significant factor – you haven’t even tried, and c) that warming is bad – hard with greening deserts and increased farm productivity.
There’s your roadmap to shut us up. And, BTW, do it without substituting scenarios for predictions and predictions for data.
Then I’ll be a believer again.
Strange that you are unaware about science and that “proof” is for mathematics. You don’t “prove” science; you develop a body of evidence for it.
Meanwhile the effects and evidence of climate change are simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world.
There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences
Climate Change Evidence & Causes
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
Followed by 36 pages of basic points and evidence.
Evidence of CC all over the world due to natural causes was gathered prior to the modern age as well.
You N-CC deniers seem to attribute all change (Nor A) to A activity. And, yes, mathematics is utilized in science. Stop being a dumbass.
#facepalm Somebody alert the scientists.
The scientists are aware.
Only the science wannbe’s repeating the party line are in denial.
Maybe you never saw curves drawn prior to the hockey stick?
#facepalm You are a time waster. Perhaps you can find another nutter somewhere that will have a good talk with you. Bye.
Jeez, the door hit you on the way out.
At least you admit to being a nutter. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.
You’re an expert on appeal to assertion. Sadly, that’s not a valid or sound argument.
No, we don’t prove or disprove anything in science. We use math, it’s a tool, to understand the data, but we don’t prove anything in science. Science and scientific knowledge are not binary and final. They are open for changes and updates as new evidence comes in. Stop embarrassing yourself; you have been told twice now.
You provided no evidence that ACC is false, none. Do you even know what constitutes evidence, how something becomes evidence?
There’s a well phenomenon called crank magnetism – cranks are attracted to cranky ideas, just like magnets.
Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
You mean as salesmen are attracted to snake-oil?
Hate to break it to you, but the burden of CAGW evidence is on your shoulders not mine. Unfortunately, you’re unable to shoulder that burden with nothing more than models adaptive enough to predict the present and past. You have to show robust predictive results over a period of time before you earn that cred that you’ve taken for granted.
Keep swimming little salmon. Upstream you go. Come back when your models ARE able to predict future outcomes. Then I’ll give you the cred you so desperately want. For now – swim.
Oh dear.
You have not answered any of my questions. Ironically, you just a bunch of empty assertions again and more crank theories. Pay attention, I did not ask you to list your crank theories. I asked you to tell me which crank theories you don’t believe in. Are you thick? Why can’t you answer that? Is it that got believe in all the crank theories, you’re a master crank theorist?
This time you persisted with your ‘math prove’, wrapping it in models- another crank theory. Why not admit to your fault like a big boy? Or do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?
My dear, climate models are tools based on math to understand the data, to understand the evidence. They are not the evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). Climate models do projections based on scenarios, not predictions based on forecasts. Your ignorance is stifling.
And no, there is no such thing as CAGW. That’s your crank theory again.
Here is the evidence that ACC has not been falsified:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The burden has been met. And it has been voiced as well:
100% of scientific bodies of national or international standing do not dissent from ACC.
175+ countries signed the Paris Agreement to curb warming to 2 °C.
A 97% consensus based on evidence (not opinion) emerged that ACC is not false.
98.4% of climate change scientists endorces the 97% consensus.
But here you are, claiming that the smartest people in the world are all wrong about the ACC evidence. And that you, some anonymous Disgus denier ignorant troll, is correct. But you fail to show your work. In fact you loudly refuse to show your evidence. That’s not very snart at all. You don’t even understand that science don’t prove anything, that climate models are not the ACC evidence. You don’t even know the correct scientific theory is ACC, not your CAGW crank theory. But you want me to take your word for it that ACC is false, after you demonstrated your stupidity? What’s wrong with you?
And then you end your drivel with an insult to demonstrate how your reasoning failed you. Do you really think that would convince my that you’re crank theory is legitimate?
You made clear claim:
Where is your evidence to support that? Where?
You provided no evidence that ACC is false, none. Do you even know what constitutes evidence, how something becomes evidence?
Predictions.
You will once again not answer any of my questions. You will offer more appeal to assertion. And you will offer more insults to remind me how your reasoning failed you. Are you happy with that, or will you try to show my predictions wrong?
Pathetic.
Give me some concrete predictions, snake-oil. And then, more importantly, back it up with outcomes. Any old model can predict scenarios, let’s see if yours can predict even a modest period – 10 years.
Or, keep on selling the snake-oil. Cause that’s all it is
BTW, this is a 2 month old thread – let it go.
Smartest people in the world…. luckiest in the world to be employed with no performance. Only happens in academia and the gov’t.
You lived up to my predictions. Well done!
Models don’t predict scenarios – that’s you’re crank theory.
Predictions.
You will once again not answer any of my questions. You will offer more appeal to assertion. And you will offer more insults to remind me how your reasoning failed you. Are you happy with that, or will you try to show my predictions wrong?
Do it agin for me.
Keep swimming little salmon, you have many waterfalls to traverse. What’s that? Oh. appears you’re a koi. Good luck with that.
‘Many work in industry and private equity. You’re thick’
Gov’t contracts or grants. And we know they (grants and contracts) are awarded regardless of the recipients opinion on CAGW, right? Without the gov’t pressing for outlandish scenarios – their jobs wouldn’t exist.
Back to the drawing board my little koi.
Denier, you have not answered any if my questions. You did live up to my predictions. You’re dumb, that’s why you’re predictable.
I see that you abandoned your climate models canard. You’re back to all scientists only work in academia and government. That’s simply sbsurd. Scientists don’t get funded by government grants. So, all scientists in the world are in this conspiracy theory to lie about ACC, to impact your greedy lifestyle, hu?
And no, CAGW does not exist. That’s you’re crank theory. ACC is the scientific theory and explains the fact of warming earth due to your CO2 emissions.
Do you seriously think that by insulting me that you would convince me of your position? Seriously, why would I want to join your cult if you can’t even answer a basic question? Why does it take three times for you to understand your cognitive errors?
I was right, you’re IQ is so low, it’s a miracle you’re alive.
Prediction:
You will once again not answer any of my questions. You will offer more appeal to assertion. And you will offer more insults to remind me how your reasoning failed you. Are you happy with that, or will you try to show my predictions wrong?
Do it agin for me.
AGW is complete and utter nonsense.
Almost two centuries of science laugh in your face at your uninformed opinion.
Best,
D
There you go again Dano….. don’t you tired of your own nonsense. Two centuries again !!!???? HA HA HA HA HA HA What a boob !!
The papers by Tyndall and Arrhenius were complete misunderstandings about Fourier’s heat theory (published in 1827/ 1829).
Until Pouillet, and Arrhenius wrote their papers, 1838 for Pouillet; 1896 /1906 for Arrhenius, there was NO mention in the literature about any greenhouse “backradiation” nonsense (Tyndall (1861)). Robert Wood (1909) quickly disposed of these “backradiation” fools and their total misunderstanding of Fourier’s heat theory.
As of 1909. the AGW “backradiation” theory was DEAD. It is just that you leftie boobs cant understand basic science.
I dont have any more time to waste on your poor education Dano. But you should stop pretending to be an expert in the
presence of someone like me, who IS a real life subject material expert.
AGW is complete and utter nonsense….., it is only believed like a religion by the braindead Left in the world at large.
You’ve just refuted almost two centuries’ worth of fizzix. Congratulations. What do I call you? The Next Galileo?
snicker
You are dismissed.
Best,
D
That’s “physics” not “fizzix” HA HA HA….. It’s great that I have really got under your skin, you unscientific fool HA HA HA HA
It’s like pulling the wings off of a fly…… HA HA HA
Gotta go now and do some real work but it was a pleasure to drag you through the sewer of your uneducated mind. Love to do that for any leftie.
Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:
BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat
NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014
UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.
Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1985 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.
OK?
John, I can tell you are a “true believer”……. how can anyone with a straight face quote to me databases from CRU, NOAA or NASA ? CRU was so badly embarrassed by their internal email scandal that I don’t believe any sensible person would treat them as unbiased. It is the same with all of the groups above. The problem is that temperature is a local variable yet the ludicrous “science” of “climatology” treats it as a statistical variable….. and once you go there, we only have “lies, damn lies and statistics”. Plus we know for a fact that colder temperature points of reference have been eliminated by NOAA to show an increase in this “statistical temperature”…. you could call this sampling error but I call it gross corruption in these government organizations. This is not the stuff of science but of government politics that is heavily ideological based in socialism / communism. Marx would be proud.
Ok. You you refuse to check the databases. The sign of a true denier.
Let that sink in for a while.
What about the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer. That is from your true denier camp. Are you saying that your camp is currupt as well?
Let that sink in a little. A little more.
As for the rest of your post: it’s littered with assertion fallacies. Seems like you true denier study group did not teach you how to be taken seriously, taught you to back up your wild claims. You are accusing scientific bodies of fraud. That is a serious legal matter. You supplied no evidence, therefore your claims are all rejected.
Hos is that sitting for you. Is that really how you get through life? How is that working out for you so far? Think before you answer.
Lastly, you claimed that the earth is not heating up. That is why I sent you these databases, to check it yourself. You refused to, even though one if them is from your camp. Now, tell me, how do you know that yhe earth is not heating up? Do you have data to back your claim up, or is this more assertion from you.
This is interesting. You claim that the smartest people (scientists) in the world got if wrong, but you, the anonymous Disqus user got it right. But you refuse to show your evidence, refuse to cite your credentials, refuse to cite your temp databases.
That is facinating.
You called me a ‘true believer’. What is that?
Are you claiming to be able to read my mind, to know that I believe in science? But I quoted on of your camp’s datasets, are you saying I’m like you: a true believer? Wow, that’s some magic there. What else can you do besides read my mind, true denier?
You now need to reread my post, slowly. Let it sink it. dliw down. And then, come back and give me your best reason why I should take you seriously? Tell me about your greed, about your greedy lifestyle. Tell me what you have to lose if ACC is not false. Can you do this, true denier?
We both know that you would not. You see, denialism is a sickness. You invent your own pseudo reality because you can’t deal in this reality. In your pseudo reality your claims need no evidence, your claims are facts. Show me wrong, I dare you.
Pathetic.
My word !! We have woken the sleeping warmist !! Love how (as an obvious Leftie) you put words and arguments in “my statement” that I did not make….. and then argue against them…. HA HA HA an old debating trick that only fools naifs. “Assertion fallacies” HA HA HA HA I think that is your “way” of saying you disagree with my assertions HA HA HA
Very funny…. trying to look intelligent I guess….. but you come across as a “snarky” pompous pseudo-intellectual. Try to tone down the pompous smarm.
I have looked at all of your data sets in previous work and prefer that the satellite data sets, yet all data sets are prone to human massaging that we know goes on in the halls of CRU, NASA, NOAA et al. Hansen and Phil Jones were particularly good buddies and discuss these “change algorithms” to bias the data toward their arguments….. you clearly are blinded by your own AGW religion.
No one denies that we have been coming out of the “Little Ice Age” but ALL of the warming is natural. None is man made …. I really laugh at folk that seem to believe that a trace gas CO2 causes all of this.True idiocy of the highest order.
And yes, I am truly very smart and trained way beyond this silly climate nonsense. Last I checked ALL Disqus users are anonymous including you …. so very silly statement.
This is not a forum to discuss data sets. All statistical data sets are
to be queried as to their provenance….. Hansen’s hockey stick is a prime example of manipulation by NASA…… I dont ask you for anything.
I wont reread your post as it is more foolish nonsense. That is clear because you claim that anyone that disagrees with you is a “denier”…… that is just your typical leftie sewage….. I don’t have to prove anything to you. I absolutely know that AGW is complete and utter hogwash from the Left in America. End of story.
I have you exactly where I wanted you. Let me apply more torque. Feeling it? Good.
As expected, you have not given me any reason why I should take you seriously. Sadly, your insults do not work on me. You did not answer any of my questions, you just offered more assertion fallacies. Well done, at least you’re predictable. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.
You’re still claiming to know more than the smartest people in the world, yet you give no evidence of that.
How do you know that the datasets I supplied you does not contain satalite data? Oh dear.
The datasets contain your denier data too. No reply about that, hey.
Do you actually think that satalites measure temperature? Wow, you’re dumber than dumb.
Can you post me your do called satalite temp datasets? I dare you.
And then you do the Monckton manoeuvre. Now you suddenly accept that the earth is warming. So, all your assertions about the temp datasets were rubbish then, born in your delusion. Wow. What an admission by you. Yep, given enough rope, you’ll do a 180 return. Or was it a case that you lied to me. You knew the earth is warming, you knew the datasets show that, but you lied when you rejected the datasets. You did it because you have a deep seated need to deny. Oh dear, oh dear. That’s not very smart. No wonder you don’t want to discuss the temp datasets anymore. You were caught with your hands in the cookie jar.
But you claim that all the warming is natural. How do you know that? Do you suffer from amnesia given that you completely forgot to cite your evidence for your claim.
Yes, read it again, true denier.
So, what is your climate change scientific credentials? Can you share this, or is this a case of you defining it into existence, but refuse to evidence it. More assertion from you.
Seriously, you’re claming that the smartest people in the world is wrong and you are right, yet you fail to cite your credentials or any evidence for your claims.
Are you just stupid?
We both know that you can’t change the science. You’re not qualified.
This is about your greed. And that is why you refuse to answer my questions. And I’m backed up on research on this. There is an extremely strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The notion that resources are limited and need regulations should be avoided at any cost by deniers to protect their greedy Laissez-Faire Capitalism ideology.
Predictions. You will once again not answer any of my questions. You will offer more assertion fallacies and pathetic insults to highlight how your reasoning failed. Are you happy with that?
Yawn !!
Ok. You now want your reply to be as meaningless as possible, to hide how your reasoning failed. Ill accept your signal of defeat.
Good bye denier. You lost. Buf you still have to vomit an insult. Go for it.
You are hilarious to read…. A real child arguing with yourself…….Yawn !!!!
And there we have it: your insult.
Darn, you’re so predictable.
Do it again, live up to my prediction. I command you, do it.
Proudly display your museum of mistakes. Do it now!
Predictions. You will once again not answer any of my questions. You will offer more assertion fallacies and pathetic insults to highlight how your reasoning failed. Are you happy with that?
Instead of all this anger how about a few facts?
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
Adrian, answer the questions in my previous post if you want my attention.
You already admitted that there is no settled science. So your [CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt is wrong.
You see Adrian, you turned on yourself.
We both know that you can’t change the science. You’re not qualified.
This is about your greed. And that is why you refuse to answer my questions. And I’m backed up on research on this. There is an extremely strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The notion that resources are limited and need regulations should be avoided at any cost by deniers to protect their greedy Laissez-Faire Capitalism ideology.
But, it the databases are nonsense and full of fiction, as several have recently been shown to be, then where are you? Nonetheless, the facts are amazingly simple:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
You did not answer my questions Adrian.
How do you know that?
Is the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer also nonsense?
So the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer, is nonsense?
Wow Adrian. That’s an admission!
Try this climate sucker:
The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:
[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.
The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. To wit:
[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]
Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!
This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”
That’s brilliant! Adrian. Did you think that up yourself, or is there some awesome source you inadvertently forgot to credit for this unbelievable brainstorm, hitherto overlooked by all the science agencies of the world? I’m sure with the proper presentation, this could get you a Nobel Prize. I wish you all the luck in the world, Adrian. Don’t screw it up!
/s
Thank you, I think…
This is simply Le Chatelier applied to the atmosphere as a system wherein the only physical reaction occurring is water changing from gas to liquid and back. Where gravity is such an efficient “bottle” we only lose about 100 kg of gases per year to outer space with 99% being hydrogen and helium the equation is utterly valid and it is consistent with our history, witness 1930 to 1980 and in spite of some wobble from 1980 to 2000, it is now tracking per Le Chatelier.
Le Chatelier was a very good Burgundy too, or was it a Bordeaux? Adrian, it’s great to see your sense of humour is right up there with your other superior abilities.
/s
I think you have your vintners confused with one of the great physical chemists of all time. Henri Le Chatelier was born in the late 19th century, lived until 1925 and made great contributions to our understanding of solution chemistry and the physical reactions of gases. Unlike other systems used by the “global warming” people the Le Chatelier Principle actually works.
Is he any relation to Chandelier, the lighting genius?
Senator Edward Markey does not know what he is talking about. Man cannot change climate, mother nature does this for us. It has already be established that “cold” kills more than 10X the number of people in the U.S. each year than heat. None of the forecasts generated have matched the models and these models are based on hypotheses that have been proven wrong year after year. When the data does not match the model, you must throw the model away and begin again, you cannot change the data as so many try to do. All of these people are “power grabbers” and are taking our hard-earned tax dollars and putting that money in their own pockets. They can do nothing to solve the problem. CO2 is not the cause of pollution, it is people like Gore, the AG’s and their cohorts that fly around the country in their private jets and 4 mansions while consuming more energy and distributing more pollution than 2700 homes. People, just look at these fakes.
Markey is a dumkopf!