 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 584/600) |
|
Hudini
|
JAN 01, 12:49 PM
|
|
ray b, the earth has been warming since the last ice age. The question is whether it's man made or a continuance of nature's cycle. So far it has not been proven either way. Common sense says it's nature's cycle as the earth has been undergoing the heat up - cool down fluctuations for millennia. Can you not see why people are skeptical?
And for the sake of argument, if it is man made, how is a tax on the US and Canada going to make a difference? Canada will soon find their new carbon tax scheme is going to be very costly. And it won't matter even the tiniest bit except to their citizen's wallet. Australia found out the hard way.
Are you so blind and obedient that you cannot see there are many other factors at work? There is a very old saying that applies here. If you do not understand the situation, look for the money. Who stands to benefit from a massive carbon credit trading scheme? It isn't me or you.
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 01, 02:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
why don't nut-con's care about lies from their blogs ?
why do they hate fact checkers ?
and never care about a history of paid lies ?
|
|
The reason that those questions no longer matter is because your preferred scientists are busy trying to explain how their own data is both correct and doesn't contradict their claim
Amd then you show up in this thread with "nut con blogs are liars" as an arguement for AGW.
It's okay.
That seems to be the only proof being paddeled by AGW scientists these days.
Most things are simple to explain. Things only get complex when you try to explain how complex it is.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 01, 02:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
The reason that those questions no longer matter is because your preferred scientists are busy trying to explain how their own data is both correct and doesn't contradict their claim
Amd then you show up in this thread with "nut con blogs are liars" as an arguement for AGW.
It's okay.
That seems to be the only proof being paddeled by AGW scientists these days.
Most things are simple to explain. Things only get complex when you try to explain how complex it is. |
|
world wide climate is simple to explain ???
maybe to a simpleton
yes I have seen the BS on the nut-con blogs about missing data
reminds me of climategate e-mail BS of some years ago
seems your boy's never give up on a dead horse beating
yes raw data contains errors and needs to be adjusted
if the climate scientist donot adjust the nut-con's scream about errors
and if they do adjust then it is gate scandal
fact is all the temperature numbers are up air that this latest BS is about
ocean and land temperature numbers numbers are up ALSO
and polar ice is way way down at BOTH POLES
ALL AT A TIME THE SUN IS IN A LOW SPOT CYCLE= bit bit less output
a event that should be cooling the earth
but just like the CO2 warming predicts
we are getting hotter and the ice is going away
did you even look at the ice chart ?
or is your dogma forbidding learning facts ?
and always come back for more of the SOS
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 01, 05:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
world wide climate is simple to explain ???
maybe to a simpleton
|
|
Look statements like
"2016 was the hottest year on record"
are specifically aimed at the people
you label as simpletons.
Then compare that to another
statement like.
"you must look at the whole record"
The 2 statements contradict one another.
and yet one of them is completely wrong
and misleading. So as a result they have
again fall back on yet another worn out
statement(s).
"It's more complex than a simpleton can understand"
When a subject can not be narrowed down to simple
terms that most people can understand, it's because
of the massive layers of complexity added to smoke
screen "simpletons" from seeing the agenda...
There is a difference between understanding the
science and Just sliding all your chips between
red and black merely following the bets of "scientists".
I get called a climate denier because "I'm not convinced"
for me the science is not settled. I have not investments,
income or skin in the energy industries. My political views
could stand just fine without AGW being a reality or not.
No scientist on either side has given me the clear proof
that AGW is or is not proven or disproven. All I know is that
if you put me in an air tight room and fill it with CO2, I would
die form asphyxiation before breaking a sweat.
I've seen a few videos where a fish tank was filled with co2
to show (cloaking) of heat from inferred detection.
Now, just put
2 thermometers into 2 mason jars,
fill one with co2 ,
put lids on both
sit them in the summer sun
side by side so we can see which on gets hotter.
Subtract the friction related heat
due to the gas expansion creating compression in the co2 jar
and the difference in temperature will tell the truth.
If the co2 jar is still hotter by even a fraction, then AGW has some merit.
If temperatures are statistically identical, then AGW is complete BS.
if the temperature is lower, we should be talking about AGC (cooling) not AGW.
Hell do the experiment. there are 66% better odds that co2 has an
effect of some sort vs none at all.
It's simple experiment to prove a simple claim
"co2 entraps heat causing a rise in temperatures"
I believe that claim only to be true only when the
co2 is in a state that allows for heat absorption.
but because of the low boiling point of co2, it is
very unlikely that is found naturally in an absorption
state with out intervention that produces extremely
low temperatures and/or compression. There are
2 thermal characteristics of co2 that make it hard
for me to see the connection between CO2 and AGW.
And if you are not aware of such characteristics then it
is you who has not fully looked into the science required
to bridge the gap between the Nature and the Claim being
made.
BTW, our atmosphere is not a jar with a lid on it. That is why
you have to account for heat caused by gas expansions causing
compression within a sealed system. Also, the fact that co2
obscures IR camera detection of a flame does not prove heat
entrapment. it merely exposes the limitations of IR cameras. Had
the camera been placed on the opposite side with the flames
between the co2 and camera it would have been a more telling
experiment because you could have witnessed the heat transfer
itself. Yet another simple experiment they have avoided so that
"simpletons" don't get confused by the facts.....
There is your challenge. I'm not a denier. I just have personal
experience that makes it hard for me to rely solely on the claim
of a "scientist". There are natural characteristics of co2 to
overcome before we reach AGW through CO2...
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 01, 06:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
pokeyfiero
|
JAN 01, 07:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Kania
|
JAN 01, 07:38 PM
|
|
Clearly settled. 
From your link. What would we ever do without the fear of graphs? It looks scary. It sounds scary. But, it is just .2 to .3 degrees Celsius increase in thousands of years. Yes, it had spiked, but only due to the skeptical graphing principles by your scientists.
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 01, 08:23 PM
|
|
So your grand contribution to the conversation
is to yet again rely on someone else's explanation
of your understanding. that is a cop out.
Can you articulate your own position on AGW as it
relates to co2? BTW, I can. Like I said there are 2
barriers to over come and you, rinse or the
articles you both use utterly fails to address them
much less over come them.
Hell it appears that you are completely unaware of
the gas cycle of co2 and the degree to with temperature
and pressure affect it's performance in regards to heat
transfer.
As of right now I have contributed more science based thought
on the subject, you've only contributed insults and a link to
someone else's work and I have no crackers to offer,
"Polly wants a cracker": (common phrase) This saying is well known and has been around for more than 100 years. It was used in Robert Lewis Stevenson’s novel, "Treasure Island," which was published in 1883.Polly....
Please reply with little bit of personal buy in...
instead of simply linking to things you can't
apparently articulate in a conversation. Plus
posting a link just looks intellectually lazy...
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 01, 10:55 PM
|
|
''I believe that claim only to be true only when the
co2 is in a state that allows for heat absorption.
but because of the low boiling point of co2, it is
very unlikely that is found naturally in an absorption
state with out intervention that produces extremely
low temperatures and/or compression. There are
2 thermal characteristics of co2 that make it hard
for me to see the connection between CO2 and AGW.''
the stuff does not boil instead
it sublimates ie goes from solid dry ice form directly to a gas
at normal real world temp and pressure
that has nothing to do with how the gas behaves
or how it absorbs and emits heat that makes it a greenhouse gas
and is a ''look a squirrel '' attempt to misdirect ------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 01, 11:07 PM
|
|
That is theory. Show me the PROOF. Show me the study that PROVES the theory. Show me the independent verification of the original study. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.
Then show me how a tax on industrial countries will fix it. Maybe if we give all our money to the UN so we cannot afford anything other than walking then everything will be ok?
|
|
|
