The Skeptical Science Blog - has ties to Al gore

I always new that the people running the skeptical science blog were global warming activists, this just proves it.

They even have ties with Al Gore FFS, so what exactly will they be spouting????????????

The skeptical science blog
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm

 

The "scientists" who deny global warming are on Big Oil's budget.

 

And the scientists on the global warming religions gravy train?

I suppose their all poor are they.

You should ask yourself why banks are pouring billions of dollars into the global warming religion???

I dont see them doing the same for breast cancer for example or other noble causes.

The bank of America the world bank have poured over $50 billion dollars into global warming!!!!!

WHY?

 

And those that further the AGW agenda are in the pockets of green groups...your point is what? That we shouldnt trust one vested interest group but trust the other???
Sorry but the lies and failed predictions of the agw religion far outweigh those of the others.

Nice fail though

 

Because global warming, unlike breast cancer, is a problem which threatens the very existence of our world.

Let me ask you this:

If you parked a car in your home, shut the windows, and turned it on, what would happen? Wouldn't your house become filled with smoke?

When all of the emissions of modern civilization float upwards, they pollute the atmosphere. Heat from the sun cannot escape as efficiently, resulting in worldwide temperature increases.

Do you think pollution just magically disappears?

 

Yeah thats fair enough ofcourse you will suffocate if there is no oxygen, but dont forget that we also do breath in CO2 and drink it in our soft drinks and beer thats what makes them gassy.

The problem i have with the global warming religion is that their Global Circulation Models or parametric computer models all show that because of manmade CO2 thats 4% of the total amountCO2 in our atmosphere we will be destroyed.

Manmade Co2 per annum is currently at 30 giga (billions) tonnes at present the amount of CO2 our ecosystems throw up into the atmosphere is about 720 giga (billions) tonnes per annum.

But you never hear Al Gore or any global warming zealot give you this typr of information in the media right all they do is scare the bejesus out of you with all these doomsday predictions.

So why will the 30 giga tonnes man throws up destroy us? when the ecosystems throw up 24times as much?

I got of track what i really wanted to say was that in these computer generated models the IPCC is telling us that CO2 is trapping heat in the tropopause 10 to 12 kilometres above sea level at the equator.

They are telling us that there is a hot spot there that threatens to drive major climate change and a runaway greenhouse effect because of the 30 giga tonnes of CO2 man sends up into the atmosphere.

This is their signature that CO2 is causing global warming, the jewel in the crown.

Well guess what empirical evidence such as thousands of weather baloons and satelitte data fail to detect this hot spot.

That tells me that they are talking crap.

The other thing you should consider is why is global warming funded by bankers?

Do you really think bankers and banks care about global warming?

What about the $2 trillion dollar market that trading carbon credits will create on wall street and other financial centres?

 

Non of that is relevant. It's sort of like calling evolution false because Darwin had character defects.

Here is how science works:

Once an individual publishes a paper, it is open to peer review and scrutiny. It no longer belongs to the author.

 

Maybe you should tell Michael Mann that cause he certainely didn't want to disclose how he arrived at his hockey stick projections.

While your at it better tell the IPCC they need to be more transparent and show us all how they are arriving at these conclusions, which are constantly being revised and in some cases do a 180 turn.

BTW i dont agree with you, if someone tells me this is hapenning and i tell him where is your evidence and he points it out to me on a computer model and this evidence doesn't exist in real life through empirical data then i would be quite justified in telling him he's full of sh!t.

Dont you think????


.

 

So rather than deal with any of the valid points you just offhand dismiss the post... I think you agenda is very clear...

 

Lay of the conspiracy theory Kool-Aide.

 

would that be the conspiracy theory that all the big oil companys are joining with all the right wing pollies to subvert the science?
As has been pointed out to you...Your RELIGION is a faillure

 

Russian Orthodoxy is a failure now?

 

History shows that CO2 has never driven our mean global average temperature?

What does our history say about the effects CO2 has on our atmosphere.

Millions of years ago


The graph above clearly shows that our global mean average temperature is independent of the level of CO2 in our atmosphere, even when we had about 20 times the CO2 we have today in our atmosphere.

We can even see that even though the CO2 is high the temperature drops and then the CO2 follows.

There was no major climate change or a runaway greenhouse effect back then that was created by the high levels of CO2 (7000ppm ) in our atmosphere, but you don’t see Al Gore or the IPCC or any other global warming zealot advertising this.

So if 7000ppm of CO2 didn’t initiate the catastrophic events Al Gore and the IPCC are saying will happen to us now today because we have gone from a pre-industrial level of 280ppm of CO2 to a level today of 390ppm CO2 in our atmosphere.

Why should we believe them?

If 7000ppm didn’t initiate the end of the world, why will a jump of 110ppm from 280ppm to 390ppm do so now?


.

 

your religion of AGW...

 

I worship atmospheric gravity waves?

Okay, pal. . .

 

There are so many holes in the global warming religion's armour its just not funny anymore how people can fall for their bullsh!t.

 

So you are either dumb as dog (*)(*)(*)(*) or being flippant because you are unable to debate.....

 

If the science was settled why the need to mislead people or secrecy or a concensus.

If the science is settled you hang it out like dogs balls to be examined by all.

Mann's shonkey stick graph


He inconveniently forgot to show the medieval warm period

 

You are not being truthful D&D with the co2 ratio between natural and manmade. If you are not going to be truthful with that then there is a good chance that the rest of you post is BS!

- - - Updated - - -

You are not being truthful D&D with the co2 ratio between natural and manmade. If you are not going to be truthful with that then there is a good chance that the rest of you post is BS!

 

Well then show me the evidence?

Just coming on here and saying i'm not truthful and i could be wrong about everything is weak at best.

What is your source of information???

.

 

I was making reference to volcanoes:

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumour mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

 

Hey dude when i say the ecosystems that includes valcanos it includes anything that is natural CO2, so eco systems includes oceans, land, vegetation, animals and yes valcanos.

The total natural amount of CO2 the ecosystems throw up every year is 720 giga tonnes.

Thats 720 billion tonnes = 720,000,000,000 tonnes

Manmade CO2 is around 30 giga tonnes

Thats 30 billion tonnes = 30,000,000,000

30/720 = 0.04166 is manmade CO2

Thats 4.17% percent is manmade 95.83% is natural CO2 from the ecosystems.

So tell me why will the 4% manmade CO2 kill us and why doesnt Al Gore EVER mention that 96% of CO2 in our atmosphere is natural from the ecosystems.

 

Pick me, pick me.....I know...Because the GloBULL warming CULT only ever blindly believe what Pope AL says........ You cannot show common sense to a religious freak....period!...same as you can't fix stupid!
____

hallelujah Pope GORE!

 

Well, I know a thing or two about how science works. I was in my third year of PhD studies in astronomy before deciding I wasn't interested in research. (I still have a BA in physics and a MS in astronomy with a concentration in cosmology)

So even though I am not well versed in the sciences related to global warming (and neither are you, judging by the way you copy/paste random bits of info), I can say that I am cnfident it exists.

The number of researchers on your side is in the minority. Are you asking me to believe that all climate researchers in universities and government organizations all across the globe are secretpy conspiring to create a false theory?

I would not be surprised if you believed in the ancient alien hypothesis!

The fact of the matter is that all of the facts used as evidence in support of global warming are publicly available. They are not hidden under Al Gore's bed.

Mmkay?

 

I'm afraid i have to disagree, you see Michael Mann had the opportunity to hand over his work/methods and declined but Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre still proved him wrong anyway.

So thats thewhole point here if the science is settled why not hand over his work, mate if i discovered something i would be saying here it is dude go or it.

The global warming religion isn't what its made out to be its a scam.

There are thousands of scientists who disagree with global warming unlike the consensus it does have weight behind it.

- - - Updated - - -

Some light reading for you then