Look what I just received in my work mailbox -- from the Heartland Institute

so no?

 

AGW is not controversial either. Did you now that the GOP is the only political party in the world that denies AGW?

 

Thanks very much. Funny how this topic was not part of the FAA course I took and passed on global weather.

Nobody thought to mention carbon dioxide.

There was some talk of a major global cooling. That really did worry me. Cool is bad. Hot is easy to deal with.

 

1) Dust from Africa gets picked up and travels across the Atlantic to Brazil. I would submit that dust is denser than Carbon dioxide, so carbon dioxide can indeed be dispersed by winds. Perhaps if the earth wasn't rotating and there was zero wind, we would have gases "stacked" by density.
2) Where are these "many university professors that know the subject allege we need not fear" - What university?
3) Do you deny that the overall mean temperature of the earth is rising?
4) Have you seen graphs that show that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere parallels the rise in temperature?
5) Not all people who are wrong are liars. Liars are people who know they are wrong, but repeat the falsehood,
6) What motive is there for the overwhelming majority of climate scientists to say there is a problem if they know there isn't a problem?
7) Can you understand why the fossil fuel companies would like to discredit global warming due to carbon dioxide?

 

Which differs from all media concerning agw over the last decade how?

 

Correct. Even the department of defense agrees.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...es-climate-change-national-security-challenge

 

LOL, quantum physics guys are constantly questioning several details concerning gravity, evolution is a strong theory and AGW models are a disproven hypothesis. They are miles apart.

 

That's true. They would be ridiculed if they don't have good evidence. That's how the Scientific Method works. And it does work!

 

The scientific method works. What doesn't work is the peer review process that puts a couple guys in charge of deciding what to accept for publication. That's not the scientific method.

 

Its a good thing that does not happen......all over the planet

 

I don't remember the ridicule step, or for that matter, the part about consensus escapes me as well.

 

Consensus is when your doctor agrees you should take Lisinopril for high blood pressure

 

Or leeches for bad blood?

 

Have you had a doctor do that? You must have Trumpcare

 

Funny how time and knowledge affects consensus devoid of actual proof.

 

Yeah....you might need a new doctor

 

I would agree Policy does not belong in the science class room. Do you also point out that the IR Absorption spectrum is only one of a large number of things that impact global temperatures or that water vapor and methane are far worse greenhouse gases than CO2? Or that Venus and Mercury both have atmospheres that are roughly 80% CO2 but one is cold as a cucumber while the other is so hot you'd be reduced to ashes before you ever set foot on the surface?

 

As a matter of fact, it is the Scientific Method!

Though the way you put it is very simplistic. But with all its shortcomings, we agree that it works!

 

Does that really happen? Give me an example. Who was there? Dressed how? In your face or merely willing to talk?

 

One plus the truth equals the majority.

 

Depends on where you are remembering it from. I remember it from all the way back to Galileo. More or less the time when most say Modern Science started. Galileo was ridiculed. And justifiably so because, even though he was right, he didn't actually prove it until 10 year after he made his findings public.

I would say that was the point when ridicule substituted "burning at the stake" when a scientist makes claims without a sufficient base. A big step forward for epistemology, that was.

 

Is that on your T shirt? LOL

 

Just think about the view of climatologists in a couple decades.

 

Moments back, i was looking at a research paper on Carbon Dioxide. Seems back in 1971, CO2 was at least 309 ppm. I mean, they act like it was that low last year.

Check the data out. There are higher reads as well so I only mentioned the absolute minimum.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1971.tb00604.x/epdf

 

Do you know the difference in AGW and GW?