Global Warming HOAX Unravels

originally posted by: vjr1113
just think about it for like a second without your tin foil hat.

does our carbon emissions magically disappear into space? no

how do you get a green house effect? by collecting carbon.

what happens in a green house? the temp rises.

no data at all necessary to prove global warming, but it helps.

And yet, folks have bought into this anti-AGW propaganda that they fail to even see it plainly written out before their eyes. They constantly claim that the temperature data has been manipulated but you never hear them deny that GHG's have steadily risen, so what do they propose happens to all that gas. It dissipates, but how many years does that take? What affect is that accumulation of GHG going to have on our temperatures? A rising or falling? Just as you've pointed out, temperatures in a greenhouse rise.

originally posted by: vjr1113
just think about it for like a second without your tin foil hat.

does our carbon emissions magically disappear into space? no

how do you get a green house effect? by collecting carbon.

what happens in a green house? the temp rises.

no data at all necessary to prove global warming, but it helps.

Well if you want to make it real simple to understand, try this.....


Temperature rises causing an increase in water evaporation and precipitation from plants, leading to an increase in rain clouds.....and what happens to the temperature under cloudy skies ???

a reply to: Rezlooper

The evidence is smacking us in the face. It's baffling how people can sit there and honestly say we aren't experiencing climate change right now. Oh wait, they always rebut, "But climate has always changed!" as if that exempts them from proving why the climate changing now is EXACTLY the same as the climate changing in the past. Of course many who repeat that mantra fail to acknowledge that the climate changed in the past MANY times due to CO2 factors.

a reply to: ken10

Cloud cover helps, definitely. But, with the amount of methane gas rising, which traps heat much more effectively than carbon, heat temperatures will continue to soar to life-threatening levels before there will be enough cloud cover to slow down the heating. Plus, what happens to life when there is a lack of sunshine? There would have to be that much cloud cover to make that much of a significant difference or reverse the warming trend.

a reply to: ken10

we aren't talking about water vapor here. take a trip to LA, NY, Latin america and china.

do not mistake acid rain for regular rain

Let's say that global warming DOES NOT exist.

Why would it hurt that we get renewable energy? That our emissions get lowered?
- It wouldn't. Look at China ffs. They can't breathe inside that there town, Hong Kong??? Anyways.

Let's say that it does exist.

Great, renewable energy, win win win.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
I will have to get back to you all later. But please read this stuff i offered to show you why i feel the way i do. It might make sense one day if you would not be so quick to dismiss those in dissent as being a denier. In fact all Scientist should be poking holes in all theory's or trying to anyway. When they survive the pokes they can become Laws of Science.

Lol. A scientist who could adequately disprove climate change with ACTUAL science would be the next science superstar on par with Einstein. Disproving scientific theories is one of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science.

Now are you being laughable on purpose or by accident?

Please, be more sensible to all the available data and not just the part you have decided is the truth. You think science is settled with a theory? You are not using ALL the data as i am trying to provide with you with more than just what you think is the data. Look closely at the data that MIGHT make you sick to realize or you will be blindsided later when the truth is finally realized. Look closely at the car and the other new age energy sources and watch how they are squashed or taken advantage of by friends of those who have power in Western governments (fraud). Those like the Solendra Solar Manufacturing hucksters who basically stole that money and got huge bonuses while making it look like the business is not profitable. Easy to make a good Idea look like bad with plain old math if you are allowed to pocket the money for nothing done and file bankruptcy.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: ken10

Cloud cover helps, definitely. But, with the amount of methane gas rising, which traps heat much more effectively than carbon, heat temperatures will continue to soar to life-threatening levels before there will be enough cloud cover to slow down the heating. Plus, what happens to life when there is a lack of sunshine? There would have to be that much cloud cover to make that much of a significant difference or reverse the warming trend.

www.sciencedaily.com...

This worldwide volcanic dust veil acted as a solar radiation filter, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth.

In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius on average.

Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
I will have to get back to you all later. But please read this stuff i offered to show you why i feel the way i do. It might make sense one day if you would not be so quick to dismiss those in dissent as being a denier. In fact all Scientist should be poking holes in all theory's or trying to anyway. When they survive the pokes they can become Laws of Science.

Lol. A scientist who could adequately disprove climate change with ACTUAL science would be the next science superstar on par with Einstein. Disproving scientific theories is one of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science.

Now are you being laughable on purpose or by accident?

Please, be more sensible to all the available data and not just the part you have decided is the truth. You think science is settled with a theory?

Well seeing as how a theory is the highest form of scientific understanding at what point would YOU call a scientific idea credible? Do you discount the Theory of Gravity too because it is incomplete? After all, we know less about Gravity than we do about climate.

You are not using ALL the data as i am trying to provide with you with more than just what you think is the data.

What data? I already told you I'm only concerned with the posts you've addressed to me. You haven't given me much data, and the one link you DID provide me I showed you were cherry picking information from it (which is funny that you are now accusing me of the same thing)

Look closely at the data that MIGHT make you sick to realize or you will be blindsided later when the truth is finally realized.

WHAT DATA?!!?!

Look closely at the car and the other new age energy sources and watch how they are squashed or taken advantage of by friends of those who have power in Western governments (fraud).

That isn't climate science so I don't care.

Those like the Solendra Solar Manufacturing hucksters who basically stole that money and got huge bonuses while making it look like the business is not profitable.

Still not climate science so still irrelevant.

Easy to make a good Idea look like bad with plain old math if you are allowed to pocket the money for nothing done and file bankruptcy.

So proving that dishonest people will take advantage of scientific concepts for profit somehow is case closed as disproof of global warming? Looking at the climate science data itself necessary? Yeah, you are the one cherry picking information, not me. When you decide to actually address the science, let me know. But as long as you want to talk about profits or politics I could care less about your opinion. It is irrelevant to disproving Climate Change theory.

If AGW is a hoax prove it with actual SCIENCE!

originally posted by: mbkennel

Many climate scientists are saying that Michael Jackson is alive and entertaining astronauts on the space station with a tremendous Marswalk. Just please note that I am not in any way, shape or form trying to confirm or deny their claims, just stating that there are such scientists making such claims.

Oh, dear. I don't know what response you were hoping for or expecting, but I don't think I can give it to you. I guess you thought that was quite clever or insightful or proved some kind of point, but I don't know what it is, and I have nothing to give you. But so glad you got to have your say.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The global warming being pushed on us by global governments is a science fraud. The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists.

Thats odd when John Christie, well known "sceptic" asserts that the UAH satellite data - that he helps look after - claims that "The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years."

www.newswise.com...

See also

www.drroyspencer.com...

a reply to: ken10

Volcanic eruptions also contribute a hell of a lot of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere just adding to the suffocating blanket.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No a theory is a place to start looking. A theory must survive the data and this theory that the models work has been disproved over and over by the data. I see why people say it becomes a religion as some point. Don't be the Bishop of AGW when we all know the models have failed so much they had to change the name from Global Warming? Really are you that way?

The data in the links, good lord man.

originally posted by: SBargisen
Let's say that global warming DOES NOT exist.

Why would it hurt that we get renewable energy? That our emissions get lowered?
- It wouldn't. Look at China ffs. They can't breathe inside that there town, Hong Kong??? Anyways.

Let's say that it does exist.

Great, renewable energy, win win win.

Indeed,

Thats is one of the things I dont understand. If we all cut our carbon emissions we save money. Why is that bad? We cut pollution. Why is that bad? We move off Victorian technology and enter the 20th century [sic]. Why is that bad?

Unless you are selling coal .....

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No a theory is a place to start looking. A theory must survive the data and this theory that the models work has been disproved over and over by the data.

Data which you continually fail to actually produce...

I see why people say it becomes a religion as some point. Don't be the Bishop of AGW when we all know the models have failed so much they had to change the name from Global Warming? Really are you that way?

A religion? You are the one telling me the theory is wrong without actually proving it.

The data in the links, good lord man.

What links? Where are they?

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: ken10

Volcanic eruptions also contribute a hell of a lot of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere just adding to the suffocating blanket.

Not a lot.

volcanoes.usgs.gov...

Here's the problem. We can't even have a discussion about green energy and cutting emissions because, as this thread demonstrates, we can't even agree if the earth is warming.

It is...I keep reading reports that 2015 is the warmest year on record. 2015 is the warmest year on record for las vegas...

Come on guys!

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Metallicus
The global warming being pushed on us by global governments is a science fraud. The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists.

Thats odd when John Christie, well known "sceptic" asserts that the UAH satellite data - that he helps look after - claims that "The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years."

www.newswise.com...

See also

www.drroyspencer.com...

Yes, 0.30 of one degree that isn't really a problem is it? In fact with normal error statistics being + or - 5% in using scientifically reproducible monitoring data we can see how this could be an anomaly of the equipment. NOAA apparently did adjust the data, in an attempt to make it right you all say, and i say to rig the game.

One day it will sink in with you people who deny the true science and call us deniers, that the cycles swing both ways equally, cooling then warming will always be the Earth weather. Deep down you know I have to right about some of this and you just need more information to come around to the reality of it all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No a theory is a place to start looking. A theory must survive the data and this theory that the models work has been disproved over and over by the data.

Data which you continually fail to actually produce...

I see why people say it becomes a religion as some point. Don't be the Bishop of AGW when we all know the models have failed so much they had to change the name from Global Warming? Really are you that way?

A religion? You are the one telling me the theory is wrong without actually proving it.

The data in the links, good lord man.

What links? Where are they?

Are you pretending that we didn' t provide them in the posts on this thread? You cannot be that shallow, who do you work for? Just kidding. But that is like one of those Jim Carey movie characters. However, "I don't remember that!" is not good enough for this thread Krazy, man we have done our due diligence with links.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No a theory is a place to start looking. A theory must survive the data and this theory that the models work has been disproved over and over by the data.

Data which you continually fail to actually produce...

I see why people say it becomes a religion as some point. Don't be the Bishop of AGW when we all know the models have failed so much they had to change the name from Global Warming? Really are you that way?

A religion? You are the one telling me the theory is wrong without actually proving it.

The data in the links, good lord man.

What links? Where are they?

Are you pretending that we didn' t provide them in the posts on this thread?

I already told you that I'm not going to go through this whole thread to find your obscure links. Just post me a link to your posts and I'll review them. You keep not doing that and keep saying I don't listen to the data.

You cannot be that shallow, who do you work for? Just kidding. But that is like one of those Jim Carey movie characters. However, "I don't remember that!" is not an good enough for this thread Krazy, man we have done our due diligence with links.

Where are they? Just humor me and repost them already. If they exist in the thread then just post links to the posts in question. For instance I'll go ahead and repost some links you didn't address. You COMPLETELY ignored all of the links in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here I'll even repost every single one of them.
2015 Likely to Be Hottest Year Ever Recorded
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record
NOAA: 2012 Hottest & 2nd-Most Extreme Year On Record
2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year