Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

As we've already pointed out that C02 is not the only thing affecting climate, why do you persist with your strawman?

 

All of the corrupting bribe money goes to your side. That's why nothing but putrid sleaze and outright fraud comes from your side.

In contrast, the rational and moral side rejects your bribe money. The scientists effectively take negative money, giving them added credibility.

Remember Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation as to why all the data contradicts you is "You're part of a fraud cult". Thus, that is most likely to be the correct explanation.

Your explanation is insanely convoluted, making its likelihood of correctness insignificant.

 

Again no explanation.

 

Didn't catch you post the link to that free book. Looked back through your older comments, but couldn't find it.

 

I'd ask you the same. When all the evidence shows you that our climate is cyclic and naturally changes and has, repeatedly through time, why continue to support the dollar hounds of climate change skeptics who believe climate shouldn't change because it seems inconvenient, but are perfectly willing to suck billions of dollars out of public funds to support their habit?

 

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

Funny stuff. Fraud cult ??

Scientists take negative money ?? Which ones are those ??

Ocam's razor shows that the current warming is no different from the other 9 warming periods in the Holocene and that increasing CO2 has little effect. To claim that the cyclical warming and cooling of the Holocene is the result currently of CO2 emissions (in fact you actually claim that we would be in a cooling period if it weren't for increasing CO2) is pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

 

Yes, there have been 9 previous warming periods in the Holocene which are very similar (some warming faster, some warming slower) to the current warming. These have occurred ~ every 1000 years. Why haven’t the thousands of climate scientists focused on that ??? Why hasn’t the IPCC focused on that ???

 

I think its a simple answer. No one would spend billions researching something that just happens. You have to put the human face on the accountability of "why" climate is changing in order to soak folks for their money to support your "research" into the otherwise naturally occurring thing. This isn't new. It's been said for a couple decades now. Folks have found that the lure of easy research money overcomes their more altruistic intentions and makes them slave to the AGW narrative no matte how unable to support the actual claim with data becomes.

 

This ^^^ is exactly what Ike warned about in his last Presidential speech.

 

Science does not make use of "proofs", nor have your provided me with any proofs.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU have no idea what it means.

No, you gave me two links to two different governmental agencies. Government agencies are not science. Within those links were pretty looking graphs about things which cannot be accurately measured, such as global temperature and global CO2 content. Random numbers are meaningless.

You've provided no proofs to me.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU don't know what those things are.

 

Anything that is above absolute zero in temperature (such as the surface, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc.) are all emitting. The surface emits the most energy (it is the hottest). The atmosphere also emits energy, but at much lower frequencies, which means lower energy, and something of lower energy cannot heat something of higher energy. That's attempting to make heat flow 'uphill'. A single shot from a BB gun is not going to stop an oncoming train.

The sun is heating the surface and the surface is heating the atmosphere (it is a continuous process). The atmosphere cannot in turn heat the surface again.

 

Precisely. NASA is NOTHING like it used to be.

 

I’ve proven otherwise.

You have no idea what an inversion fallacy means.

I did not. If you read them, you would know that.

You are fully aware the above statement is false.

You have no idea what an inversion fallacy means.

 

This has been repeatedly proven false. It’s basic, fundamental, grade school level science.

 

What school and what grade?

 

Seems clear to me that not carbon dioxide but clouds, eg. Water and water vapor is the real control of climate.

 

It is when they blamed man that they got into trouble. So unpersuasive have they been, they still can't persuade millions of people.

 

I didn't get that impression.

But the archaeological record shows wine grapes were NOT being grown in Britain either before (Dark Age Cooling) or after (LIA) the MWP.

 

Absurd.

Oh, yes.

Why is the solar component so grossly underestimated when it is VISUALLY OBVIOUS that the solar cycles were far stronger during the rapid warming of the last 3/4 of the 20th century than in the late 19th or early 20th centuries? Why is it assumed that the effect of sustained high solar activity is transient and not cumulative?

 

Every school and usually around 5th grade.

 

I would need more than just your word.

 

Ok.

www.google.com

 

It shows to me how often you make things up.

 

Huh? We learn about greenhouse gasses and their effects in grade school. You are perfectly aware of that.