Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

I marvel at the absurdity it takes to think you possess the data when the data you rely upon comes from and is thoroughly analyzed by the relevant experts.

 

My position is you have no data that encompasses a relevant time frame, considering earth's history.

As you know and we have discussed.

 

Get some relevant data that encompasses a proper time frame and prove your theory, for a change. Climate change has been happening for billions of years.

 

Uh...I thought you just said that we are seeing a warming trend that matches previous warming trends.

So how can you make that statement if "you have no data that encompasses a relevant time frame, considering earth's history?"

 

We have obtained and presented relevant data on the types and causes of climate change that happened during those billions of years.

The data very strongly supports the assertion that the current warming trend is caused predominantly by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

You are just back to going around in circles, I see. You need to use a longer and more relevant time frame.

No it doesn't. It's your theory and your refusal to accept that CO2 levels were higher on earth before humans were around.

 

I dont know how many times you need to be told the very basic fact that just because humans can not be the cause of CO2 concentration from millions or billions of years, that does preclude humans from being the cause of the CO2 concentration today.

 

No there are no government funded groups of scientists who worship the flat earther climate change altar.

How does that make your scientists right Legal? You've already proven you can't back up your claims about humans being the primary cause of climate change. The best your flat earthers can come up with is that its "likely"

And I've already proven your scientists will happily delete data and attack newspapers and scientific journals if they don't fall in line with flat earther theory.

On what planet does that pass for science Legal because it isn't earth.

 

Absolutely. Grab that link Legal and unlike you I'll actually read it and destroy your claims as I have all the others

Then quote any of your famous articles that state they have been able to eliminate all other factors for climate change and are left only with human created CO2 as the primary source for climate change.

Quote the article directly Legal don't just link to it, quote to where it specifically states that since it goes to the heart of your flat earther theory.

 

It does when you cannot identify what CO2 is human produced vs natural and have totals for each to prove your worthless theory that only CO2 magically is the primary reason for climate change.

Go ahead and try. This should be even more amusing.

 

Because your stance is a fallacy. You know full well that levels of CO2 in the past were higher than they are today.

 

@MrTLegal please produce your scientific studies that specify the exact percentage of human produced CO2 vs natural.

Because if you are going to blame human based CO2 as the primary source of climate change it should at least be more than 50% of all CO2 on the planet right?

We both know that's not true but it should be amusing watching you try to answer that question



So here’s the bottom line. According to the IPCC’s own data, man-made CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 0.000009%! That’s 9 millionths.

CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry.

The IPCC Can’t Deal with Water Vapor
The IPCC is basically stuck on water vapor. It can’t actually measure it, since the variability across the world is so high, H2O vapor changes so quickly, and it takes place above a variety of different landscapes/topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So it just shuffles it to the side and states it has no “confidence.”

Here’s exactly what the IPCC says:

“Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes … because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low.”

It doesn’t suit the IPCC’s agenda to really dive in and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas driving climate temperature. It’s far easier to just pretend it doesn’t exist and only focus on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere instead.

Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion
The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth’s eco problems, is a giant hoax. It diverts environmentalists’ attention away from the true issues that need addressing. Does it make any logical sense to spend so much money, energy and attention on 0.000009% of CO2, when there are very palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment?

What about geoengineering, the aerial chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons’ Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs?

What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have real MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species?

Respected theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said:

“The possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated … the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

Final Thoughts
Despite all the politicians, celebrities and soul-for-sale scientists AGW has recruited to its cause, there is no real basis for the fearmongering.

At the very top, those pushing the manmade global warming hoax know that it’s a scam, so rather than focusing on the facts, they appeal to emotion with fake images of starving polar bears (to arouse anger) and underwater cities (to arouse fear).

The truth is that the green movement has long been hijacked by the very same NWO manipulators who helped to ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinational corporations.

These manipulators rely on the average person being too busy or lazy to check the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy via their control of the MSM, the educational curriculum and their numerous think tanks.

Finally – if you dare – dig into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you may be shocked to find how deeply it is steeped in eugenics and depopulation. It’s time to realize that those pushing this gigantic scam aren’t interesting in saving the environment – but rather depopulating it.

https://www.shiftfrequency.com/man-made-co2-3-of-3-of-0-1/

 

And more importantly neither Legal or the earth dude or any of the other flat earthers have provided any proven factors that show somehow CO2 by humans magically has become the primary source of climate change now despite being a fraction of CO2 on earth or explain how CO2 isn't to be considered a primary cause of climate change when it was 14-19 times the amount of today in the past during an ice age.

This is why they keep losing the argument.

 

By the way the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the way Hadley cells operate makes it extremely hard to explain how all the CFCs generated in the northern hemisphere get all the way to over Antarctica to create the ozone hole. Probably why they don't even try to explain it.

 

There are no recognized groups of national or international scientists who maintain a dissenting opinion. That's all I needed you to confirm.

Thanks.

 

I still havent seen you destroy a single claim or source, but go to town.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

None of the articles are going to say that they eliminated all other potential factors. That is precisely why they all include the phrasing that you rejoice in wrongly when they say things like "very likely" and "95% confidence". It is because they recognize the inherent limitations of studying such a complex system. They COULD be analyzing the data incorrectly or failing to account for a certain variable, but the data - no matter how you look at it or what method you use - continues to confirm that the single variable that most accurately matches the observed warming is the increase of CO2 through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Here is a graphic that uses NASAs Goddard data.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

And because you wanted to see the quote, for some reason,

As to natural factors, the article says

 

A) That argument does not address his fallacy (false choice), but instead raises another (strawman). You've essentially claimed that it is impossible to measure ground level CO2 emissions or to evaluate the composition of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Both are wrong.

I'm linking you to the intermediate version of the article. Let me know if it goes over your head.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

....and? The fact that CO2 was many times higher in the past and humans were not the cause does not preclude humans from being the cause today

 

A) How do you know the Earth was in an ice age while the CO2 was 14-17 times higher? @EarthSky already quoted the author you appear to have relied upon and noted that he explicitly said the amount of unknowns in the data meant that his data should be taken as any sort of real authority about the climate at that time.

B) Earthsky also noted that even if you could prove that the Earth was in an ice age at that point in time, you would still need to address the cause and whether those causes explain the current climate. So, for example, if that specific (hypothetical) ice age was caused by a milankovitch cycle (orbital variations and solar intensity), then you would still need to address whether that cycle explains the current cycle. It doesnt - based on all of the available data.

 

Well we do produce more co2 than both of those countries, and we are the only one to back out of the Paris agreement.. so

 

We produce more than China on a per capita basis, but not more in terms of absolute production. Granted it is because their population 3x ours.

 

LOL All you confirmed is I don't know of any personally. That doesn't mean that don't exist.

 

hahaha Yes you have. Every time you claimed humans are the primary source of climtate change and your own flat earth scientists can only claim its "likely" and I can quote them

LOL There is nothing in there that supports your flat earth theory about man made climate change Legal. All it does is claim their predictions have been accurate. How do you think that mkaes your case when it doesn't even discuss the subject?

And of course I love this little tidbit:

The authors say that while the relative simplicity of the models analyzed makes their climate projections functionally obsolete, they can still be useful for verifying methods used to evaluate current state-of-the-art climate models, such as those to be used in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report, to be released in 2022.

Oops! Legal once again caught not reading his links! lol

Exactly making your BS conclusion its man's fault a complete lie. Thank you for finally admitting it.

95% confidence wasn't based on any numbers they presented. It was a conclusion they drew based on opinion not data. If you deny the obvious then quote the data they used directly Legal. Go ahead. Since you've already admitted they can't account for the other factors with any data how in God's name did they come up with 95%? lol And you can't even hear yourself can you.

Once again you didn't read your own link. They never differentiate between natural and artificial greenhouse gasses or prove that it is the actual cause only that it follows the same line. That's like saying more people play outside when its warm therefore people going outside makes the temperature increase. This is the stupidity of your argument. You never prove that just because greenhouse gasses increase they are the cause and not simply a correlation much less separate natural vs human produced which of course they never do.

Thanks for once again not reading your own links. Makes this a lot more fun [/quote]

 

LOL Earthsky ADMITTED the numbers were higher back then and didn't read my link of where the data came from and just assumed the author without checking because he was too lazy to do so.

Quoting your new hero

But let's grant you that CO2 levels were somewhere between 2,400 and 7,000 PPM back then.

Christ Legal do I have to requote everything just because you can't read it for yourself?

And that's the hypocrisy. He's a CO2 denier before humans were around that CO2 is the primary source of climate change without being able to prove it of course but when humans are around and CO2 is 14-17 times LESS than it was during an ice age he wants to blame only human produced CO2 as the primary source of climate change.

Do you see how ignorant that reasoning is? But of course you are right there with him. How? How is CO2 the primary factor only when humans are around but when its 14-17 higher its no longer a factor? How does that level of mind numbing fallacy make sense in your mind?

 

Might want to brush up on recent history.

https://capitalresearch.org/article...on-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/


oopsie doopsi.

And all without the Paris Accords. Amazing isn't it.

and we didn't have to give away billions of our tax dollars to other nations to do it. How does that happen?

Of course the flat earther morons predicted doom and gloom including our COI2 production would go up not down.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...ty-trump-gets-rid-of-obamas-clean-power-plan/

Of course as usual the flat earther predictions were wrong once again