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

He says he won't read stuff that is not scientific papers...
He says he won't read stuff that is not properly referenced...
Fair enough, I do watch youtube videos from people with no apparent credentials. Who is this Roy Spencer? Is he a Climatologist or just some guy with a frozen face?

Heck, I can post pics of guys with frozen faces...

I guess this guy could care less about global warming.

 

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

Quote from National Academy of Sciences
"The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Arthur Robinson clearly states that the purpose of the petition was to gather signatures from people who agree with him. He achieved this purpose; he got signatures.
As Whittenberger states, “He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again

 

More science and less BS

To set this up, Armour has critics who allege his guess over sensitivity is way high.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/how-much-warming-is-earth-in-for

Will Earth's Climate Get More Sensitive to CO2? Only Better Satellites Can Say

 

Sorry posters but today ends it. From 4/19 forward, I will report all taunts and insults and trying to paint me as the goat of the topic I started. I hope however never to need to report.

 

They are not reports

They are RESEARCH papers. Now a fair proportion are undergraduate papers a fair proration are from private funding and private foundations and a proportion are from open government grants

Why don't you ask your friend Lindstrom who paid for his research?

 

When was the last time you saw anyone on this board quote anything by Gore?

But if there is a denialist with clear ties to big oil and a history of taking money for biased opinions then they are quoted by the right

Big oil has been playing the tobacco industry game. Trying to discredit the research

 

A. DOES NOT SAY CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT HAPPENING
B. CONFIRMS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING
C. DISPUTES THE FINE DETAIL. WHICH IS WHAT MOST SCIENTISTS ARE STILL DOIN

 

1) is bullshit because -aaaagh go google it yourself. Try the term interglacial
2) is ALSO bullshit because if co2 starts releasing all that Siberian Methane we is going to be in Biiiig trouble!! (Look up feedback mechanisms) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
3) to store CO2 you need forests and guess what we are cutting down at an unprecedented rate?
4) so, you are right and all those scientists in all those other countries around the world are wrong?
5). Now this is just random bullshit

 

What part of NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST makes her an expert?

 

So you think that the above excerpt proves that the hockey stick has been debunked?

 

I didn't say we were in an glacial advance. To pretend my point was otherwise, in order to attempt to refute it, concedes it, thank you. We are in an interglacial period, within an ice-age.

Another alarmist scenario based on a positive feedback assumption, when the evidence suddenly supports dampening and strong counter-cycles of stasis.

With rising CO2 levels, we should see increased greening, and guess what, we do! Did you know that the Sahara, until fairly recently, geologically speaking was Savannah? Warm Earth Conditions have very little desert.

Nature is right. Whoever has the position closer to what is verified in the natural world is right. You seem to be laboring under this crazy concept that facts are established by votes, and even further, by votes that are only counted if you are part of some sort of August ad-hoc committee! Perhaps you could ask them to take a vote and determine that the radioactive waste pouring into our ocean from the Japanese nuke plant isn't harmful so we can all stop taking iodine in order to head off thyroid cancer?

It's dead balls on. Our current continental configuration is a wall from the Bering Strait to the Strait of Magellan, since the North and South American Continents joined, preventing the Oceans from creating much more uniform warmth throughout the world. The larger landmass that used to be up near the equator, is now sitting on the South pole, with 9,000 feet of ice piled up on it, and with that 70% of the earth's fresh water.

So, the Caribbean is hot as hell, spawning hurricanes, the warm waters of the equator on the Pacific side are trapped rather than washing warmth up through Greenland, Iceland and Northern Europe, the first two have essentially no growing seasons, they are basically big ass popsicles. Northern Europe's growing seasons are so short and lousy that the populations routinely starved until until the Americas were discovered, and with all that fresh water locked up at the South Pole, massive tracts of land in Africa, the Middle East and Asia are dry as bone desert. And you are sitting around wringing your hands, scared our of your wits that this might change?

Well, it's doubtful you can cause any harm, but when I see these clowns talking about deep sequester of carbon, and trying to alter the atmosphere so that it reflects more of the sun's energy back into space, because apparently these bozos can run the Earth's natural cycles better than they can build websites that don't work? Now, THAT, we need to not do. But, reforesting Europe, great idea. Work on that. And work on all the flippin garbage and filth Asia and India is pouring into our oceans and their freshwater systems. There is plenty to do, its just that good plain old clean up of garbage, plastics, pcb's, radiation, industrial solvents, pesticides, herbicides, air and water pollution is no longer sexy to these clowns, no, they have all decided that what they want to work on is eradicating carbon, the fundamental molecule of all life!

Natural CO2 levels range from about 180 ppm in the depths of an ice age, up to 7,000 ppm in nice warm earth conditions. Life flourishes in warm earth conditions and earth's natural processes convert that CO2 to living things. We have recently risen through the 300 ppm range and are finally knocking on the door of 400 ppm and so should see not only increased crop yields but an overall greening of the planet, and if this keeps up, it should reduce the pressure to use all these fertilizers that we use now, because there is no better fertilizer than a little warmer and a little wetter in the presence of adequate CO2. You do realize that the dinosaurs didn't farm? They just waddled form one big batch of naturally grown food to the next. But, with the increased CO2, we should see greening when we compare satellite shots, and guess what, we do!

 

Al Gore is idiot. And a Carbon Pig. He is essentially the crooked preacher of the progressive movement. He has the "sin" the "apocalypse scenario" and for a fee, will even sell you "indulgences" in the form of Carbon Credits. World's first carbon billionaire, quite a scam!

 

And along with him, so too are the Hollywood Ignorati Carbon Pigs and crooked preachers. They preach to you little people and then get on a rented yacht with their party, or fly in a private jet, like Obama did from Palm Springs to the private island of Virgin Airlines chairman and hypocrite, what's his beard. All the while they badmouth "big oil" which makes possible their limousine liberalism.

 

Such behavior is very common among cults. Charismatic preacher, always preaching on sin, even while he is corn-holing the church secretary behind his wife's back. Didn't Fat Al Gore, the Doomsday Preacher of the De-Growthers, sell his television network to a bunch of Gulf Oil States?

 

It seems the only ones that mention All Gore are the deniers. Is it some kind of fetish?

 

I call you a denier. You are no scientist. You are just someone who denies science: AGW ToE.


BTW could you provide a list of thousands hundreds of climatologists who deny AGW? Thanks in advance.

 

These Michael Mann lawsuits where he is building up the hockey stick?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-suit-heads-to-trial/?utm_term=.0ee6c3d626f2

 

So what problem can they have when it is greening?

One might have been thankful nature has the solution well in hand.

This looks good to me.

 

Armour is an alarmist for gosh sake.

 

So confused. I never said my friend Lindstrom, whomever that may be. I communicated with Dr. Richard lindzen. Briefly I may add.

So, you want to moan over every one of my descriptions, eh? I tossed you Armour as a bone to show I am willing to show other views. I don't believe you have to date even shown one contractarian view. So, what this says to me is your mind is locked in concrete. unable to consider more evidence.

 

There are fortunes to be made by claiming man is a danger to the climate. I suspect somebody monetizes people willing to keep up this nonsense. And they get very angry when I or you post the truth.

 

Here is the thing.

They can blog on this forum ... poor little them.

They can pretend some of us are all to blame and they by whining are totally innocent.

 

Their agenda has little to do with the environment, that is simply the horse the progressives, the redistributionists and the degrowthers ride.

 

They manage to get so furious over the topic too. I revisited my OP and notice they did not discuss the science, but went immediately on the attack.

I remind them, attacking me as a person is not debate.