In case you didn't get the message

Hey...with CO² readings of 400PPM back in July, we should have had 80° average temperatures all winter long across Canada and the northern U.S. Instead we had the coldest, snowiest winter since 1977/78. Doh! So much for man made climate change...formerly known as global warming.

 

Sorry but its this 'over enthusiasm' with just such restructuring displayed by so many here that lends weight to my view. I don't doubt some do have genuine environmental concerns but most are using this issue to facilitate the imposition of their particular political worldview upon the rest of us frankly.

Thats nothing to do with 'conspiracy theories' thats just a fairly obvious observation

 

It looks like ignoring science in favor of conspiracy thinking to me, just like brother Limbaugh.

 

Looks like you are confusing me with some American who would know who he is or care what he says

 

It's more about the similarity of what you and he said. What made it fascinating was the timing. You in effect did a ditto right after I offered what he said. Anyway conspiracy thinking, in this case around AGW, is pretty much universal.

 

Strange then that its always the alarmist position that use this word to smear others who challenge the dogma. I do not recall using the word in any post I've ever submitted here

 

And here is the perfect example of denial. Anyone that can read will recognize the facts and logic PoorDebater uses.

Note my earlier quote "So all you have is a chart with a bunch of checks with no evidence that supports the claims on the chart. "
Looks like PoorDebater was right: The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 86.

I did not ignore the link; I ignored your attempt at deflecting my question. Answer my question and I will address the misinformation in your link

BTW, I'd love for the value of my stock folio to increase by 0.012% of the total value of the U.S. stock market; hell because we're discussing global warming, let's go with 0.012% of the global markets. I'm sure you'd turn the increase down because it's "minute", right?

It's important to me because 1)I love science and all the benefits it's given us. Denying the science leads us back into a world of superstition and magic. 2) I hate the dishonesty and lack of understanding of DenierWorld (love that term). When I first started my education of climate, that's what stood out; dishonesty.
I'll ask you the same question: Why is it so important for you to believe this denier nonsense ? Is it because you work for a big corporation whose only goal is to make lots of money and to hell with the consequences?

So let's see what flogger's response will be: deflection, ad hominem, or I get put on ignore? I'll go with deflection

 

Hmmm .... does HogWash understand that the US is less than 3% of the Earth's surface?

Apparently not.

 

the evident educational shortcomings in denierworld is an embarrassment to our society...it's the same lack of comprehension displayed by my mentally handicapped brother but he at least has an excuse....

 

How special are you? You have no proof of anything regarding CO2 my friend. Zero, zip, nadda. You go prancing around here like you do. LOL. You're silly. Go ahead let's see your causal proof. I've been waiting for a few weeks. Still nadda. So let's see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting on your causal proof that CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. Let us see that!

 

Those are all models. Say it at the very top. Where is the proof? do you even know what proof means?

 

Science has no absolute proof of anything, including heliocentricity. If you want certainty, go to church. What we do have is mountains of evidence that you cannot explain and I can. That's proof enough for me that you're just plain wrong.

 

ok francis! No proof, just what? So you're saying that you have no causal affect of CO2 to temperature. You just said it, no proof. LOL, the sky is falling. What about the melting ice caps why is that bad again? Oh yeah it'll make the sea level rise. It's amazing to me you and your science and you don't even understand that the natural aspects of the weather will defend against any climate change. The earth corrects itself. It's been no warming per any model in the last fifteen years. Yet you use it as evidence. LOL. Your evidence then becomes mine. Because the proof is that temperatures aren't following CO2 in the last fifteen years, nor from 1940 to 1990. Proof!!!!!!!!

 

Also, your scientist work from a model that states if x occurs then y will follow incremently. X=CO2 and y=Temperatures. Well X increased and Y didn't follow. It doesn't matter where the heat went, the model stated one thing and the actual didn't happen. Model wrong, then Science was wrong. Period end of story.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. The science on that is clear and convincing, as strong as science gets. Here are a few references.

1. Earth emits infrared: Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950

2. CO2 absorbs infrared: Niro, F., C. Boulet, and J-M. Hartmann. Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements.

3. Infrared upwelling from surface to space decreases in CO2 bands as CO2 increases: Chen, Claudine, et al. Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.

4. Downwelling infrared increases as atmospheric CO2 increases: Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008.

So where do you think that energy goes? Are you just going to wave your magic wand and make it disappear? (Another mountain of evidence unexplained by incurious, uneducated, unmotivated science deniers.)

It's actually easier to predict climate than weather. Just like you can't predict any particular turn of the wheel at roulette, but you can easily predict that in the long run, the house will win.

So you admit the Earth needs correcting. Why then do you argue the reverse?

Utterly false.

CO2 isn't following temperature? Where did you get such a completely false idea?



Oh yeah, now I remember: it was surgically implanted in your brain by the right-wing lie machine.

 

All really nice. The fact remains that the actual temperatures, the ones recorded don't follow the linear line your friends love to model so often. You see, the amount of CO2 has increased yet the temperatures didn't follow, disproving all but 2% of the models. The IPCC already confirmed that the actuals didn't follow the models. So go to AR5 and you'll find that in their report. So nothing about any machine, just factual information regarding actual temperatures to prove the facts. Oh, and I don't care that the oceans may have eaten the heat, the temperatures didn't follow like the models said they would, so eehhhh, wrong.

 

Wrong again, francis. The temperatures in that graph are actual temperatures, the ones actually recorded.

The data in the graph proves that you're just plain wrong.

Citation, please, including page number. Or admit that you're wrong.

Like the actual temperatures in that graph, which you ignore?

Wrong again. As the graph shows.

And since you didn't address at all the citations and evidence about CO2 causing warming, I guess you now agree that CO2 causes warming. And that you were wrong all along.

 

I've linked you to an eight part article that explains the relationship of CO2 and temperature. Here it is again

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation

PoorDebater has linked to peer-reviewed studies and posted graph of the relationship of CO2 and temperature.

Now it's my turn to demand proof. Prove you actually want a discussion by discussing the article instead of just denying any evidence we present. Show us you've read the articles in our links by addressing the information in the article. In other words, prove to everyone reading this that your not a troll.

 

Wouldn't that be too high a bar for a troll to meet?

 

Go read IPCC AR5. Dude, you're wrong. Sorry to burst the bubble for ya!

 

Yawn. Prove it, I am waiting. See I have data, the last fifteen years, 1940 to 1990, explain it, CO2 went up but temperatures didn't follow. DID NOT FOLLOW. Your point and link are hooey!

 

Experience has shown this guy makes up his own facts if he can't find any or changes the ones that don't fit so they are more to his liking.

Given you admire this troll so much this is clearly a lost cause

No you are simply engaging in obfuscation. Repeating the same thing over and over again in attempted evasion of reality

How is this analogy relevant . If my figure of 0.012% is incorrect then please illustrate that ?

Me too

Agreed. It was when I actually began the check the science behind the claims made for AGW that I became a skeptic. Its the AGW hypothesis that requires the crytal balls of climate modelling

And once you use terminology like that you immediately 'out' your real political predispositions on this issue. I couldn't care less about the politics. If the sums add up I'll believe them if they don't I won't. It gets no more complicated for me than that

.

How ironic

Because the real world record both past and present simply does not support the contention of human culpability. Its as simple as that

Your anti capitalism is showing again. I couldn't care less about people richer than me because my sole motivation is to eak out the truth from the blizzard of disinformation on this issue. Nothing more

 

Read it. But it doesn't say what you claim it says.

So I think you're lying. But it would be easy to prove me wrong. If you have evidence.

Just provide an exact quote and a page number. Should be easy, if you're not lying.

And still not one word of response to this evidence:

1. Earth emits infrared: Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950

2. CO2 absorbs infrared: Niro, F., C. Boulet, and J-M. Hartmann. Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements.

3. Infrared upwelling from surface to space decreases in CO2 bands as CO2 increases: Chen, Claudine, et al. Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.

4. Downwelling infrared increases as atmospheric CO2 increases: Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008.

So where do you think that energy goes? Are you just going to wave your magic wand and make it disappear? (Another mountain of evidence unexplained by incurious, uneducated, unmotivated science deniers.)

 

You didn't read it. You're lying. And until you prove to me the causal evidence that supports C02 causes a temperature increase you are wrong. BTW, what was the reason for the 1940 to 1990 cool down? C02 went up didn't it? Hmm.. there is my proof.

 

I want a true scientist to evaluate and prove where it goes. I don't need to know. I need an expert to tell me and my brethren where it went. Right now, no one knows. You don't know. You count a link to tell you and the link is wrong. you believe the link, but the link is wrong. I know the link is wrong based on the lack of data to support it.

Because the IPCC uses words like "high confidence" right after they state the models were wrong, leaves me with no confidence. Because they can't explain why the models are wrong, choose to continue to put trust in wrong models and don't state the models need to be relooked at. It's really quite simple.