Mellowman2112
Well-Known Member
Is that you UncleBuck? lol another troll tactic. Lastly name calling is an ad hominem attack.I have said it before and I'll say it again, learn the difference between an ad hominem and an insult dipshit.
Is that you UncleBuck? lol another troll tactic. Lastly name calling is an ad hominem attack.I have said it before and I'll say it again, learn the difference between an ad hominem and an insult dipshit.
you've already stated that you either accept the theory of AGW or you are a SHEEPLE who needs to WAKE UP. we don't need to cover AGW anymore, you accept it.I dont see where you refuted the Maunder Minimum. Why did temperatures drop during the Maunder minimum?
Who's denying the fact co2 level are rising?how do you suppose that will happen?
we are literally taking tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years sequestered CO2 out of the ground, and putting it all into the air over the course of a couple centuries.
how does millions of years of CO2 get handled?
it only took us a hundred years to drive CO2 levels higher than they have been in 800,000+ years. where are your CO2 sinks coming from in your self-balancing scenario?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. it traps heat.Who's denying the fact co2 level are rising?
Many scientist say that co2 lags temperature.
If that's the case, man is not causing the earth to warm.
How did the levels get so high 800 thousand years ago and how did it drop?
was that deflection or evasion?Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and isn't it much more abundant?
all gasses "trap" heat. All gases are greenhouse gasses.
BOOOooooo....hissssss...1,386,000,000 x 264,000,000,000 = 365,904,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the ocean.
1 BTU is the amount of energy it takes to raise one pound of water by one degree.
365,904,000,000,000,000,000 x 8.34 = 3,051,639,360,000,000,000,000 pounds of water.
can i just divide by two here? or does the BTU work on some sort of parabolic curve? like it slowly starts warming at first, and then gets to the end by warming more and more rapidly?
save me, @heckler73 !
I share your feelings 're politicians; I can't stand them. I wish we could spank the shit out of them and take their pensions away.We all cite copy and paste stuff we barely understand, I'll admit it.
But nobody is going to convince me that the debate is settled, there is no proof that man is causing or not causing climate change, I've seen plenty of evidence to support both.
It's not the science that i have a problem with.
It's when I see the government, the media and especially politicians pushing an agenda this hard, I have a natural defense that tells me to question it. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.
If this is a political scam, it's brilliant. They'll have the power to tax us all any time the weather dictates it.
An ad hominem is considered an insult, when your'e attacking someones character to undermine their argument, that's an ad hominem attack.I have said it before and I'll say it again, learn the difference between an ad hominem and an insult dipshit.
How am I deflecting, the conversation is about greenhouse gasses and their ability to trap heat.was that deflection or evasion?
or are you admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, beenthere?
NASA, 34 international academies of science, the IPCC and all the other institutions are made up of scientists, not politiciansI share your feelings 're politicians; I can't stand them. I wish we could spank the shit out of them and take their pensions away.
So do you think NASA is incompetent or lying?How am I deflecting, the conversation is about greenhouse gasses and their ability to trap heat.
There's no denying water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The fact that it is about 60 times more abundant than co2 and it's confirmed that it traps heat, make it relevant to this discussion, do you disagree?
it was a simple question that you have avoided twice.How am I deflecting, the conversation is about greenhouse gasses and their ability to trap heat.
There's no denying water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The fact that it is about 60 times more abundant than co2 and it's confirmed that it traps heat, make it relevant to this discussion, do you disagree?
beenthere doesn't beleive in evolution either, i saw it right on his facebook page.NASA, 34 international academies of science, the IPCC and all the other institutions are made up of scientists, not politicians
Which is ironic considering the fact, though citations are few and far between, the ones that have been presented in opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change come directly or indirectly from... politicians and individuals with a vested financial interest in the fossil fuel industry, like James Inhofe, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Discovery Institute, etc.
The opposition to ACC is purely political, which is why there is no debate about its significance inside the scientific community.
Regardless if you accept that or not is irrelevant to scientific progress, just like denying the theory of evolution, the theory of aerosols depleting the ozone layer and the theory that smoking causes lung cancer
Must be a liberal conspiracy, too..beenthere doesn't beleive in evolution either, i saw it right on his facebook page.
No not incompetent, far from it.So do you think NASA is incompetent or lying?
I'm best friends with beenthere and he never told me that.beenthere doesn't beleive in evolution either, i saw it right on his facebook page.
no, it isn't.the science is clearly divided