Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Some scientists, specialists in this topic, believe we need to get to 1000 ppm and plants all over will be revived.

 

That's pretty obvious to any reader.

As previously agreed, I'm not a pilot. However, I do know that pilots are concerned about weather. Pilots are not concerned about long range Climate change. It's very telling that you don't understand the difference.

If I didn't know better, I'd say the above postings are meant as a joke. Sadly, I know they aren't. You really cannot differentiate between weather and long range climate change.

 

Still unanswered. I ask because "science deniers" that deny AGW are often the same "science deniers" that deny ToE.

 

Well, when you keep engaging in fake posts, you will assume a hell of a lot. Assuming I don't understand weather and climate is mighty bold of you if I say so.

Let me do this for you. Removing weather from climate, what do you have?

 

(all emphases mine)

You have conflated the impact of long term climate changes with local and regional weather conditions. You did this by claiming your FAA training gave you background for your understanding of AGW. Which it obviously didn't.

 

You must have missed it.

 

I see your problem. And believe me, it is your problem, not mine. What do you believe is deficient with the FAA training? This will amuse me given you have never taken it nor passed it.
By the way, the FAA testing was the more difficult tests I have ever taken due to the format, the machine gun testing speed of the oral examination as well as the tricks they play on pilots trying to shake their confidence.

I passed with "flying colors" the first time through. The flying failure rate I was told was around 60 percent failure.

 

WHAT "SCIENTISTS"

And mate "sum bloke in der pub wot tol me" is not scientific

 

More boasts with little substance

Those who truly are scientifically literate enough to post on this subject use references to back all allegations

I have never seen a linke to an academic paper

Now tell me - can you tell the difference between an academic paper and say, brightfart?

 

I don't think in any post back to you I have shown 1/1000 the disrespect to you that you have dished out my way.

 

Is climate changing??

Definitely.

Why do you think that?

Because it does not stop changing.

What does man do to change climate?

Darned little.

Why are there fraidy cats?

They are left wingers. Left wingers are determined to control all human lives. They are not satisfied controlling their life, as little as they wish to retain of control of theirs, but want state to control all human life.

Why are they like that?

They assume state is superior, due to group think, the collective, the fact they assume state is only good, well for much the same reason the Germans felt great about Hitler, the Italians felt great about Mussolini, the reason the Soviets felt great about Stalin, etc. They literally dismiss individuality and worship state. I honestly can't think of some other causes.

Isn't it so much simpler to join them and stop arguing?

Definitely. I would too were I to accept the science.

What is wrong with the science?

Many things are. But a major reason is Earth is not a climate. It has thousands of climates. The warming charts do not reflect degrees of change, that are used to scare you, but minute amounts of heat.

OK, but they are up and not down right?

I do not know the actual dates, time scales and when I try to find out, we are back to perhaps a particular date.

Do you think El Nino shows us something?

Yes I do.

What does it show.

It shows it shows up and we have weather changes to the western coast of the USA which migrates east due to prevailing winds aloft and then after an unknown period of time, it retreats and we then have la Nina. The cooler version.

Is the vanishing ice from the North Pole alarming?

Nope. This has happened in the past with no influence by man.

What about the South Pole?

More ice, not less.

Ice sheets are melting.

The Larsen has had chunks bust off but that is due to warming by earth forces beneath the ocean.

We have a few posters who are well versed on global climate changes.

I invite them to change where I am in error or add to this.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Crane being buried in Antarctic by ice. Crane used in the mid 1960s to erect power lines. Their towers are also getting buried.


Towers

 

Wow! Robert begins with such insight, sophistication and clarity that everyone reading it must be awed, inspired and convinced. Is climate changing? Yes. Why? Because it changes.

But then he can't help himself and quickly goes to spouting his biased opinions...

They are left wingers. Left wingers are determined to control all human lives. They are not satisfied controlling their life, as little as they wish to retain of control of theirs, but want state to control all human life. They assume state is superior, due to group think, the collective, the fact they assume state is only good, well for much the same reason the Germans felt great about Hitler, the Italians felt great about Mussolini, the reason the Soviets felt great about Stalin, etc. They literally dismiss individuality and worship state. I honestly can't think of some other causes.
​

But, there are some insightful observations...

I do not know the actual dates, time scales and when I try to find out, we are back to perhaps a particular date.
But a major reason is Earth is not a climate. It has thousands of climates.

​

Overall, Robert said nothing to support his assertion that man's influence on Climate Change is "Darned Little".

 

You did as expected. Attack the member poster and not the content. And toss out all the scientific evidence or testimony that was offered. Such dishonesty on your part.

 

Let's start with this part...

Robert makes it appear as though the comment and the subsequent pictures come from nasa.gov. They don't. Just click the nasa link he posted and search "crane" or "towers". Zero results found.

This part of his post is intentionally and deceptively misleading. He uses this tactic to try to lend credence to his vacuous assertions.

The pictures comments actually come from...
https://lozzafun1.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/construction-crane-buried-in-antarctic-ice-sheet/
...which we see at the end of the post.

Here is a segment of the text that follow the pictures...

...

• As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice.

• And the crane used to build the towers will soon be totally covered by ice. (By the way. If you know what kind of crane this is, or how tall it is, please let me know.)

• Not only are the power transmission towers being buried, so are the Antarctic research stations themselves.

• The old Byrd Station has been shut down because it is buried beneath 40 to 50 feet of ice and snow and is slowly being crushed.

• The old South Pole station is also buried beneath the ice.

• So is the old Siple station.

• The current South Pole station is also slowly being buried. A new station is now being built on top of the ice to replace it.

This info comes from Robert Holmes. Mr Holmes travels
to Antarctica yearly, where he builds and maintains research stations.

• The Antarctic Ice Sheet covers five million square miles. The Greenland Ice Sheet covers another 700,000 square miles. Combined, they’re twice as big as the contiguous United States. Combined, they’re 100 times bigger than all the rest of the world’s glaciers put together.
• Glaciers are growing in other areas, too. Some glaciers on Canada’s Baffin Island are as large or larger than at any time during the past 33,000 years; perhaps the past 60,000 years.
• In fact, glaciers are growing around the world.
• See list of expanding glaciers.
• The next ice age has begun . . . and we don’t even know it.

​

The first question that came to mind is Who is Robert Holmes. It took some digging. I found one highly technical paper co-authored by a Robert Holmes, and this:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/references6.php

Bruce Peterson, Robert Holmes and James McClelland of the Ecosystem Center at the Marine Biological lab in Woods Hole report increasing flow of water from major Eurasian rivers into the Arctic Ocean.

In their study they collaborated with Russian scientists to show these six rivers, including the Lena and the Ob, discharged 7 percent more water in 1999 than in 1936. This increase is enough to raise concern that the amount of fresher water in the Arctic will reach the point that it affects the generation of Atlantic Ocean currents. "Increasing River Discharge to the Arctic Ocean" Science 298 page 2171-2173 (13 December 2002).
​

This hardly sounds like someone who would say: "The next ice age has begun . . . and we don’t even know it."

More interesting is the placement of the attribution. Everything above the attribution relates to arctic snow. The information below the attribution is speculation.

Look at the actual article from which our Robert took his information. You'll see the division there also.

This is just yet another example of how the Deniers edit and twist things to try to make their case. They take some pictures and comments about arctic snow by a scientist and then make it look like he also said "The next ice age has begun . . . and we don’t even know it."

That's what you have to do when all the facts go against your biased non-science agenda.

 

The above is a prime example of dishonest posting.

First, NASA did not publish the photos nor did I allege they did.

I offered the NASA site to prove that at the Antarctic, the ice is at record levels.

Robert Holmes has to be a common name. Even my name though not nearly so common is so common in the USA that compared to say 1950 when it was not, today in the USA my name has gotten to be more common.

As my report said, Homes is a builder of research sites in the Antarctic.

 

No, you didn't specifically state they did. You just intentionally posted the link in such a way that it looked like it did. Why would you post a link to nasa between two unrelated items?

This is from your post #136 ...

What is the nasa link referring to? Your invitation to change or the Crane being buried?

You intentionally put the nasa link where you did to try to give your post a semblance of credence? So, who's being dishonest.

Your report attributed a lot of stuff to Robert Holmes including the pictures and the snow build up and the comment "The next ice age has begun . . . and we don’t even know it."

If you don't know the scientific credentials of the person your are quoting, why bother quoting him at all? Oh wait, I know. You did a google search on "ice age" and blindly copied and pasted a whole bunch of stuff.

That's indicative of your level of research, integrity and honesty.

 

Bull puckey.

I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension. You were told by me that was not the reason and yet you persist.

 

What I said that included the NASA link.

 

My comprehension skills are very good in sniffing out Bull$hit in posts. Yeah, you told me the reason for your nasa, but we both know it was to lend false credence to your post.
You referenced nothing from that link.

I notice you didn't rebut my take on your BS cut and paste nonsense. I'll take that as an admission that my comprehension and analysis was correct.

I notice you didn't rebut my comments on you using sources that you know nothing about. I'll take that as an admission that my comprehension and analysis was correct.

 

You are wrong yet one more time. I figured by proving you wrong in just one instance, it proves you are totally wrong, but you keep getting back up for more badgering by me.

I have been ultra polite to you only to read your nonsense. I may take off my gloves.

 

Let's review an imminent climate scientist and see how she explains her skeptic view.

 

Let's add the thoughts and explanations of one of Greenpeace's founders.

He will lay it out simple and hopefully alarmists will finally catch on.

 

I realize that my pointing out your bull$hit posts might seem like I'm badgering you. Aw.
You told me the reason for your nasa link, but we both know it was to lend false credence to your post.
How do we know? You referenced nothing from that link.

I notice you didn't rebut my take on your BS cut and paste nonsense. I'll take that as an admission that my comprehension and analysis was correct.

I notice you didn't rebut my comments on you using sources that you know nothing about. I'll take that as an admission that my comprehension and analysis was correct.

I'm well aware, I've been in other discussions with you. Please do take off the gloves and post more nonsense for me to pick apart. Ya know, things like cutting and pasting without even knowing who did the original writing.



ETA: I just saw more evidence of your debating skills. You post (#146 & #147) video clips as "evidence" for your views. You can't even add any of your own original thoughts. You work under the deluded assumption that anyone will take the time to watch.

 

Let's go listen to a in charge of the climate science sort of man.

Some hate video but love to much to taunt and insult. They expect me to fall to their tricks, get angry at their posts and tee off on them. I don't need to since I have science and facts on my side.

They do not discuss. They taunt, insult ... cherry pick your remarks and then challenge you to a very edited by them discussion. no thank you.

The true alarmist is ready to fight you for his or her belief system. Don't need that in my life.



After this video, I want to show you one done for another famous Ph. d in climate that headed up NASA climate change department. That is awesome too.

 

Roy Spencer is very honest and admits he just does not know. Working at NASA, heading a department to study climate science and to admit you just do not know, very very honest. Hat tipped to a honest man.