Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,865
    Thanks
    1,429
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 955 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 35 Times in 35 Posts

    Default GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!



    I'm not going to say that everything within this video is perfectly accurate, but the overarching point is a rather interesting one about the silliness that the Church of Global Warming wants people to believe. Apparently everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else... Here is a particular Google search showing this... Just scroll down the first page and you'll see what I mean...
    https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=...10.5pGCYPodCpE

    Any Church members care to address this?


    I assume this falls under "Settled Science", as defined by Global Warming Mythology?

    Settled Science: noun
    Any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is an apparent logical fallacy, e.g. "Climate Change."
    http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thr...ference-manual
    Last edited by gfm7175; 10-16-2019 at 03:09 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gfm7175 For This Post:

    Into the Night (10-21-2019), Truth Detector (10-16-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,948
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 2,496 Times in 1,638 Posts
    Groans
    37
    Groaned 127 Times in 123 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Any Church members care to address this?


    I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.

    Do your guys say there is no global warming? Or if there is, that none of it is man-made, so there's nothing we can do about it? And what makes them so sure they're right?

    In 2014 an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration". They said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetuating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    89,820
    Thanks
    5,343
    Thanked 25,161 Times in 20,087 Posts
    Groans
    2,120
    Groaned 2,160 Times in 2,056 Posts

    Default

    chill........
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,865
    Thanks
    1,429
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 955 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 35 Times in 35 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.
    So you're just taking those people's word for it rather than looking into logic, science, and mathematics for yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    Do your guys say there is no global warming?
    I can only speak for myself. Speaking for myself, I say that we do not know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. There is currently no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth, per Mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    Or if there is, that none of it is man-made,
    Irrelevant, since we haven't determined whether or not there IS any.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    so there's nothing we can do about it?
    It is not possible to "take action" regarding an undefined and non-quantifiable thing such as "climate change".

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    And what makes them so sure they're right?
    I'm not claiming that there is none. I'm claiming that we don't know whether there is or isn't, since we have no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    In 2014 an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration". They said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetuating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."
    Let's just say that I am not a Church of Global Warming member. I am not a Warmizombie. I am not a LMS Denier (LMS standing for 'logic, mathematics, and science').

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to gfm7175 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (10-22-2019)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,952
    Thanks
    2,305
    Thanked 3,041 Times in 2,642 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 130 Times in 126 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.
    That IS the prevailing mantra that is chanted. I'll get to this later in this post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    Do your guys say there is no global warming?
    There is no gas or vapor that is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. The only thing that can change the temperature of the Earth is a change in the output of the Sun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    Or if there is, that none of it is man-made,
    Since we didn't make the Sun, it is not man made.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    so there's nothing we can do about it?
    Do about what? Assuming the same output from the Sun, there is no global warming. There can't be. I'll get to this later in the post as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    And what makes them so sure they're right?
    Ah. The key question.

    To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed, that is, more energy from than the Sun is currently putting out is needed.

    These 'climatologists' you hear about are also called 'climate scientists'. Trouble is, there is no theory of science about climate. These people deny science and mathematics. Their usual explanation for how the global is warming is the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.

    This model touts certain gases have the magickal ability to somehow create the additional energy on Earth to warm it. Typically, the argument of the 'greenhouse effect' takes one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. Both arguments violate physics. To begin with, Earth is a bit of matter in space. All matter that is above zero deg Kelvin emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The amount of light emitted is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface. At the kind of temperatures found around the surface of Earth, the surface emits light just like any other matter, mostly in the infrared band (a wide band of frequencies).

    The surface, being generally warmer than the atmosphere above it, loses thermal energy to that colder atmosphere. This tends to bring the surface and the atmosphere toward the same temperature. In other words, the surface is cooled by losing thermal energy to the atmosphere by simple conductive heating. Certain gases, such as CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. do absorb infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. This radiance from the surface cools the surface just like contact with cold air does. The upshot is that these gases are just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. It is heated not just by conductance, but by radiance as well.

    But this does not warm the Earth. It's simply the warmer surface heating a colder atmosphere and the surface itself cooling in the process of giving up energy.

    That colder atmosphere DOES become warmer by this action, but it too is made of matter, and it emits light according to the same Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    All of it, the surface, the atmosphere, everything; emits light into space. Thus Earth is cooled by radiating into space, 24 hours a day in all directions, day and night.
    But there is the Sun. It puts out light, including infrared light, that is absorbed by the Earth. That absorption results in heating, just like the Earth heating the atmosphere by radiance using it's own weak infrared light. This absorption is primarily by the surface, and is what makes our land and oceans nice and comfy to live on.

    So energy from the Sun is equally balanced by the energy leaving Earth again.

    Now enter the 'greenhouse effect'. Among the things it states, it tries to make the case that not all the energy is leaving Earth and is retained as thermal energy (what we call temperature). Unfortunately, the 1st law of thermodynamics says that you can't create energy out of nothing. Neither can you destroy energy into nothing. What comes in MUST leave. Nothing about any gas or vapor can create the additional energy needed to warm the Earth. Everything radiates light by converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (The Stefan-Boltzmann law). It is not possible to trap or hold light.

    Another argument made is the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which states that photons absorbed by CO2 are re-emitted back down to the surface again, heating it. Unfortunately, this effectively builds a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy cannot decrease in any system. This gives a direction for heat. Hotter areas are concentrations of energy. Colder areas are devoid of energy. That is low entropy. Heat flows from hotter areas to colder areas. In this way, energy is dispersed evenly through the system. Heat never flows from cold to hot (for that would reduce entropy). The Magick Bouncing Photon argument is literally attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, this is not possible.

    Another problem the 'greenhouse' effect runs into is the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself. This law states: r = C * e * t^4 where radiance is in watts per square meter of radiating surface, C is a constant of nature, e is the emissivity of that surface (how well it emits compared to a perfect emitter), and t is the temperature of the emitting surface in deg K.

    By preventing light from leaving Earth, the 'greenhouse' effect is effectively reducing the radiance of Earth. At the same time, it argues, the temperature is increasing because it is 'trapped' here on Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann law clearly states, however, that radiance is always proportional to temperature. Never inversely proportional. If temperature goes up, radiance MUST go up. If radiance goes down, temperature MUST go down with it. Both C and e are constants, C being a constant of nature, and e is a measured constant.

    Thus, the 'greenhouse effect', as explained, violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    That is how we know the whole idea of 'greenhouse effect' is bogus, and everything the 'climatologists' and 'climate scientists' say nothing more than a denial of science, for they deny each of these three laws of physics. No degree from any university, no matter it's title, makes any difference to these three laws of physics.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    anonymoose (10-21-2019), gfm7175 (10-21-2019), Truth Detector (10-22-2019)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,865
    Thanks
    1,429
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 955 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 35 Times in 35 Posts

    Default

    I've noticed that the Warmizombies have been rather quiet regarding this thread...

    WHERE ART THOU?!?!?!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to gfm7175 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (10-22-2019)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    20,977
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9,817 Times in 6,284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,682 Times in 1,562 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I've noticed that the Warmizombies have been rather quiet regarding this thread...

    WHERE ART THOU?!?!?!
    Why would they, as I noted, it is all an effort to create a false paradigm, no matter what is presented, you are going to tell us it's irrelevant using some clarabellian argument, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it ...................

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    20,977
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9,817 Times in 6,284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,682 Times in 1,562 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    That IS the prevailing mantra that is chanted. I'll get to this later in this post.

    There is no gas or vapor that is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. The only thing that can change the temperature of the Earth is a change in the output of the Sun.

    Since we didn't make the Sun, it is not man made.

    Do about what? Assuming the same output from the Sun, there is no global warming. There can't be. I'll get to this later in the post as well.

    Ah. The key question.

    To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed, that is, more energy from than the Sun is currently putting out is needed.

    These 'climatologists' you hear about are also called 'climate scientists'. Trouble is, there is no theory of science about climate. These people deny science and mathematics. Their usual explanation for how the global is warming is the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.

    This model touts certain gases have the magickal ability to somehow create the additional energy on Earth to warm it. Typically, the argument of the 'greenhouse effect' takes one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. Both arguments violate physics. To begin with, Earth is a bit of matter in space. All matter that is above zero deg Kelvin emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The amount of light emitted is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface. At the kind of temperatures found around the surface of Earth, the surface emits light just like any other matter, mostly in the infrared band (a wide band of frequencies).

    The surface, being generally warmer than the atmosphere above it, loses thermal energy to that colder atmosphere. This tends to bring the surface and the atmosphere toward the same temperature. In other words, the surface is cooled by losing thermal energy to the atmosphere by simple conductive heating. Certain gases, such as CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. do absorb infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. This radiance from the surface cools the surface just like contact with cold air does. The upshot is that these gases are just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. It is heated not just by conductance, but by radiance as well.

    But this does not warm the Earth. It's simply the warmer surface heating a colder atmosphere and the surface itself cooling in the process of giving up energy.

    That colder atmosphere DOES become warmer by this action, but it too is made of matter, and it emits light according to the same Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    All of it, the surface, the atmosphere, everything; emits light into space. Thus Earth is cooled by radiating into space, 24 hours a day in all directions, day and night.
    But there is the Sun. It puts out light, including infrared light, that is absorbed by the Earth. That absorption results in heating, just like the Earth heating the atmosphere by radiance using it's own weak infrared light. This absorption is primarily by the surface, and is what makes our land and oceans nice and comfy to live on.

    So energy from the Sun is equally balanced by the energy leaving Earth again.

    Now enter the 'greenhouse effect'. Among the things it states, it tries to make the case that not all the energy is leaving Earth and is retained as thermal energy (what we call temperature). Unfortunately, the 1st law of thermodynamics says that you can't create energy out of nothing. Neither can you destroy energy into nothing. What comes in MUST leave. Nothing about any gas or vapor can create the additional energy needed to warm the Earth. Everything radiates light by converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (The Stefan-Boltzmann law). It is not possible to trap or hold light.

    Another argument made is the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which states that photons absorbed by CO2 are re-emitted back down to the surface again, heating it. Unfortunately, this effectively builds a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy cannot decrease in any system. This gives a direction for heat. Hotter areas are concentrations of energy. Colder areas are devoid of energy. That is low entropy. Heat flows from hotter areas to colder areas. In this way, energy is dispersed evenly through the system. Heat never flows from cold to hot (for that would reduce entropy). The Magick Bouncing Photon argument is literally attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, this is not possible.

    Another problem the 'greenhouse' effect runs into is the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself. This law states: r = C * e * t^4 where radiance is in watts per square meter of radiating surface, C is a constant of nature, e is the emissivity of that surface (how well it emits compared to a perfect emitter), and t is the temperature of the emitting surface in deg K.

    By preventing light from leaving Earth, the 'greenhouse' effect is effectively reducing the radiance of Earth. At the same time, it argues, the temperature is increasing because it is 'trapped' here on Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann law clearly states, however, that radiance is always proportional to temperature. Never inversely proportional. If temperature goes up, radiance MUST go up. If radiance goes down, temperature MUST go down with it. Both C and e are constants, C being a constant of nature, and e is a measured constant.

    Thus, the 'greenhouse effect', as explained, violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    That is how we know the whole idea of 'greenhouse effect' is bogus, and everything the 'climatologists' and 'climate scientists' say nothing more than a denial of science, for they deny each of these three laws of physics. No degree from any university, no matter it's title, makes any difference to these three laws of physics.
    It is the same trite over and over again, noticed the source was left off of this one, all pseudoscience

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    6,583
    Thanks
    2,527
    Thanked 5,285 Times in 3,235 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 129 Times in 115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why would they, as I noted, it is all an effort to create a false paradigm, no matter what is presented,
    Well if you present nothing better than "but 97%, etc." or "Greta's gonna get ya," you simply don't have much of an argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    you are going to tell us it's irrelevant using some clarabellian argument,
    Not sure what a clarabellian argument is but "Greta's gonna get ya" or the tired old 97% B.S. which has been thoroughly debunked isn't going to cut it. Argue math, science and logic using math, science and logic. Not what some journalist who couldn't pass Algebra I from the NYT says.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it ...................
    Drinking water is easier for the animal kingdom than understanding the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and the SBL.

    Why don't you simply point out what is false in the post?
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    It is the same trite over and over again, noticed the source was left off of this one, all pseudoscience
    No need for a source. Nothing in the post is incorrect. It just states how the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodymics and the S-B Laws work in the frame of physics. In fact it's about the easiest to understand explanation I've seen.
    What is pseudo science or false in the post?
    Last edited by anonymoose; 10-21-2019 at 05:23 PM.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    gfm7175 (10-22-2019), Into the Night (10-21-2019)

  15. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,952
    Thanks
    2,305
    Thanked 3,041 Times in 2,642 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 130 Times in 126 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why would they, as I noted, it is all an effort to create a false paradigm, no matter what is presented, you are going to tell us it's irrelevant using some clarabellian argument, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it ...................
    Void argument fallacy.

  16. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,952
    Thanks
    2,305
    Thanked 3,041 Times in 2,642 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 130 Times in 126 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    It is the same trite over and over again, noticed the source was left off of this one, all pseudoscience
    The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not pseudoscience. Anyone can look them up. You simply deny them.

  17. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,865
    Thanks
    1,429
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 955 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 35 Times in 35 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why would they, as I noted, it is all an effort to create a false paradigm,
    Yes, that's what the Church of Global Warming is doing...

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    no matter what is presented, you are going to tell us it's irrelevant using some clarabellian argument,
    What is being presented by the Church of Global Warming has been denials of Logic, Mathematics, and Science... I've now begun calling these twits LMS Deniers.

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it ...................
    .... drink. You can't make it drink.


    Now that we've gotten through your whining, would you care to address the logic issue that I presented in the OP?? How can everywhere be warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

    For example, Canada is warming twice as fast as the "global average"... https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...c-report-shows

    So is Sweden... http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/201..._137934967.htm

    So is Tibet... https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-average/

    So is Alaska... https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Le...439353963.html

    So is China... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20180...cf6516245.html

    So is "The Arctic"... https://futurism.com/the-arctic-is-w...t-of-the-globe

    So is South Africa... http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/2019/09/25...e-global-rate/

    So are "The Rockies"... https://www.talesofchange.earth/post...e-far-reaching

    So are "Mountains"... https://psmag.com/environment/mounta...ng-photo-essay

    So is Australia... https://www.popsci.com/australia-hea...er-rest-world/

    So is Russia (Maybe Russia is also meddling with our climate, not just our elections?? )... https://www.ibtimes.com/why-russia-w...ncerns-2240034


    Oh, and as a special bonus of bogus...

    So are "US National Parks" compared to the rest of the USA... https://www.hcn.org/articles/climate...he-u-s-overall


    And a secondary special bonus...

    A search for "cooling twice as fast" yielded no countries that are cooling... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22C...iw=721&bih=318

    Same with "warming half as fast" ... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22W...iw=721&bih=318

    A "warming slower than" search only yielded that Washington is warming slower than the rest of the USA, and that Antarctica is warming slower than the Arctic... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22W...iw=721&bih=318

    Nothing about warming slower than the "global average" though...
    Last edited by gfm7175; 10-22-2019 at 09:58 AM.

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    35,728
    Thanks
    831
    Thanked 3,540 Times in 2,705 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 241 Times in 222 Posts

    Default

    laugh if you want, but that's how dire the situation truly is.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    "AssHat rocks and is fun to have around." -- Damocles

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    86,240
    Thanks
    100,394
    Thanked 19,249 Times in 16,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,904 Times in 2,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    Do your guys say there is no global warming?
    No one has ever made such an argument. Anyone with even half a brain should know that the earth has been in a warming trend for ten thousand years.

    There have been at least five major ice ages and warming periods in the Earth's history, none of which could be said to have been caused by man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    Or if there is, that none of it is man-made, so there's nothing we can do about it? And what makes them so sure they're right?
    The history of the planet? What makes you think that man could possibly change the earths climate. That takes a massive mountain of human arrogance.

    Some FACTS to assist you in your search for the truth:

    Below is the composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.

    Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
    Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
    Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
    Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
    Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
    Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
    Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
    Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
    Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
    Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
    Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
    Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
    Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
    Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
    Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

    29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind.

    The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to less than 1% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.
    AsshatZombie: "The unknowns of freedom can often seem scary compared to the certainty of tyranny."

    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”



  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    86,240
    Thanks
    100,394
    Thanked 19,249 Times in 16,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,904 Times in 2,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why would they, as I noted, it is all an effort to create a false paradigm, no matter what is presented, you are going to tell us it's irrelevant using some clarabellian argument, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it ...................
    AGW is a false paradigm. You lack the intelligence it would take to comprehend the obvious.
    AsshatZombie: "The unknowns of freedom can often seem scary compared to the certainty of tyranny."

    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-30-2019, 07:31 PM
  2. New study debunks global warming causing current global freezing
    By Cancel 2018.1 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2018, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 10:42 AM
  4. Global warming
    By wiseones2cents in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 05:29 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 10:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •