how? is it by citing groups like the 34 national academies of science who all agree on AGW while your buddies cite political front groups like the heartland institute and right wing conspiracy websites like "thenewamerican"?
You mean like the atomic weight of hydrogen? Or do you mean stuff like can a plane take off from a treadmill type science?
You mean like killemsoftly posting a cartoon that insinuates big oil spends exponentially more on AGW funding while Pad claims we have hundreds of thousands of climate scientists in gov research?how? is it by citing groups like the 34 national academies of science who all agree on AGW while your buddies cite political front groups like the heartland institute and right wing conspiracy websites like "thenewamerican"?
you have it backwards.
go on and insinuate that AGW is just a government funded conspiracy again while accusing others of politicizing the debate, i'll be here to have a hearty laugh at your expense.
and yet the "citation' in your dopey little cartoon is for a report that deals solely with US emission, clearly states SIX billion tonnes, and in no place claims the 28 billion tonnes pictured, nor makes any assertion about global emissions.
we cant all rely on wikipedia...
so you weren't implying that all those scientists (who you claim are mostly conservative) are just doing the whole AGW thing for those lucrative research stipends to fuel the liberal hysteria?
good thing wikipedia cites scientific foundations, and not articles from "thenewamerican" in their data about CO2 emissions.
You are doing way more damage than help with the AGW debate.
too bad wikipedia's claims are fundamentally divergent from the sources they purport to cite, as previously demonstrated with their "wiki-reportage" on IPCC5, and the UN's drugs survey, which are just tip of the gigantic iceberg of bullshit
kinda like wikipedia does?
because "more than half" and "dominant cause" clearly mean two different things and are "fundamentally divergent".
blankpost is blank, not even a good attempt.
drunk ginwilly made ad hom!
so NASA is fraudulently stating that we're adding 30 billion tonnes of CO2 every year?
almost all of 1 degree C warming over 120 years
Not drunk but I am a little, ok a lot, high. You seem to have drinking on the mind a lot lately, got a problem you'd like to share?
Can you provide a link to a paper showing the physics behind the "atmospheric greenhouse effect" to be valid, consistent with the various involved laws of physics and repeatable in a lab setting?kinda like wikipedia does?
In the 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution in 1751, carbon dioxide levels rose less than one percent. Since then, they've risen 37 percent. Between 1751 and 2003, human activities added about 466 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels, and cement manufacturing, account for about two-thirds of these emissions, while land use changes (primarily forest clearing) make up the rest. Humans are currently adding almost 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, and this rate of emission is increasing dramatically. In fact, carbon dioxide levels have risen by 30 parts per million in just the last 17 years, and are now increasing at about two parts per million by volume per year. The current globally averaged concentration is about 384 parts per million.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/mission/index_prt.htm
you didnt cite NASA you blithering fool, you posted a cartoon with a fraudulent citation (which was not from NASA), then doubled down, claiming the citation was valid, and then when i demonstrated it was BULLSHIT, you backpedalled, moved the goalposts, cast about with red herrings and started slinging ad hominems in your desperation.
so the "fraudulent citation" just magically happened to arrive at the same 30 billion tonnes of CO2 that NASA did, and the same 6 billion tonnes by the USA alone that wikipedia did?