This Ought to End the Global Warming Denialism on the Board

Superfreak said:
This just in... 'NOAA is a bunch of liars'... this quote brought to you by String... science denier extraordinaire
Click to expand...

NOAA has agreed with your claims about what the data indicates? LOL, no, they have not. You and the other lying scum just misrepresent them the same as you did on the biologists.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
NOAA has agreed with your claims about what the data indicates? LOL, no, they have not. You and the other lying scum just misrepresent them the same as you did on the biologists.
Click to expand...

Again....why would anyone lie to themself? One would have to lie to oneself to deny global warming, or to bear false witness against biologists and climate scientists the way the right does.
 
1966stang said:
Again....why would anyone lie to themself? One would have to lie to oneself to deny global warming, or to bear false witness against biologists and climate scientists the way the right does.
Click to expand...

Funny how all gov't paid scientists claim we're burning up.
 
Celticguy said:
Read the law and you will understand whats really happening in the bed that is not happening in the free atmosphere. But the blanket does nothing about heat escaping my body.
Click to expand...

Explain it.

You are wrong. The blanket traps the heat from your body and slows its escape. That heat keeps you warm. Not a hot blanket. A similar effect occurs with global warming.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Explain it.

You are wrong. The blanket traps the heat from your body and slows its escape. That heat keeps you warm. Not a hot blanket. A similar effect occurs with global warming.
Click to expand...

....amazing how few people get such a simple concept. My belief in human intelligence ahs declined greatly over the last decade or so.
 
1966stang said:
Again....why would anyone lie to themself? One would have to lie to oneself to deny global warming, or to bear false witness against biologists and climate scientists the way the right does.
Click to expand...

1) No one is denying that the planet warmed in the latter half of the past century... NO ONE
2) The dispute is over how much it is driven by man vs. nature.
3) The above nonsense that you posted is just yet another dishonest tactic by the fear mongers... straw man creation
4) Bear false witness against biologists? The stupidity of the comment is right in line with Strings...
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
And they do not agree with you. You are only lying about what their data shows.
Click to expand...

LMAO... no moron... I posted the chart from their site that says precisely what I have stated. That the earth's warming period has stagnated at the levels we saw in the late 90's. That we have seen no significant warming since that point in time. This, despite the fact you fear mongers claim that it is MAN'S CO2 output that is the MAIN driver in climate change.

So I ask you again... HOW can MAN be the primary factor in climate change if the very thing you fear mongers SAY is driving it... ISN'T

If nature is offsetting man's effect... then NATURE is the primary driver, not man.
 
Celticguy said:
So then you agree that CO2 cannot produce greenhouse effect withiut violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ? And for extra credit, can you name the sole of the so called greenhouse gasses that can ?
Click to expand...

I am a AGW sceptic but also know about thermodynamics. There is no way to say this, so I won't even try, you are talking bollocks.

Behind the scenes some skeptics are suggesting that CO2 can’t warm us because the atmosphere is colder than the planet, and it would break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (see Postma*, for example, p 6 – 7). I disagree. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to net flows of heat, not to each individual photon, and it does not prevent some heat flowing from a cooler body to a warm one.

Imagine three blocks of metal side by side. They are 11°C, 10°C, and 9°C. Think about what happens to the photons coming off the atoms in the middle of the medium temperature block between the other two. If heat never flows from cooler blocks to warmer blocks, all those photons have to go “right“, and not ever go “left”, because they “know” that way is towards a cooler block? (How would they?!)

The photons go both ways (actually every way, in 3D). There are more coming from the 11°C block to the 10°C block, sure, but the the 10°C block is sending ‘em back to the 11°C block too. So heat is flowing from cold to hot. It happens all the time. Net heat is flowing always hot to cold. But some heat is going the other way, every day, everywhere, bar possibly a black hole.

People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don’t “warm” the planet (as in, they don’t supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It’s a bit like saying a blanket doesn’t warm you in bed. Sure, it’s got no internal heat source, and it won’t add any heat energy that you didn’t already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo
Click to expand...
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/wh...oesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
 
Superfreak said:
1) No one is denying that the planet warmed in the latter half of the past century... NO ONE
2) The dispute is over how much it is driven by man vs. nature.
3) The above nonsense that you posted is just yet another dishonest tactic by the fear mongers... straw man creation
4) Bear false witness against biologists? The stupidity of the comment is right in line with Strings...
Click to expand...


Right, because life begins at conception oooorrrr twelve hours later and that's a fact of basic biology with which biologists basically disagree.

You are all wet.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... no moron... I posted the chart from their site that says precisely what I have stated. That the earth's warming period has stagnated at the levels we saw in the late 90's. That we have seen no significant warming since that point in time. This, despite the fact you fear mongers claim that it is MAN'S CO2 output that is the MAIN driver in climate change.

So I ask you again... HOW can MAN be the primary factor in climate change if the very thing you fear mongers SAY is driving it... ISN'T

If nature is offsetting man's effect... then NATURE is the primary driver, not man.
Click to expand...

NOAA doesn't agree with anything you are saying. Not precisely, not at all.
 
I don't care if it's man made or not. If it is, it's because we have too many men hanging around. We have added over 2 million people to the population of the U.S. alone since the 2010 census. So unless you want a real humdinger of a war, or you want to let some drug resistant super bug have it's way with you, shut up and embrace the suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top