How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Zipperfish]

the running sham being played out here is for the 'usual suspects' to ignore/deny the long-term Arctic sea-ice melting trends for both extent and volume... ignore/deny those long-term trends while fixating on predictions made by a few scientists. And, of course, while doing that, adamantly state "I'm/we're not grouping all scientists together"!

Yeah the arctic sea ice isn't really a long term trend. It's the blink of an eye. Astonishingly fast. They didn't get any pause in the Arctic. On the plus side, opening up the Arctic should allow us to get our hands on more oil! :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

Oh boy another meaningless graph.

You have no appreciation for art you cretienous bottom dweller. The lines are perfectly straight and the proportion compelling, notice the verticle arrangement of numerals to the right how they accend in a sort of a finger pointing somewhere but majesticly so, very elegant I think. Of course we save the best for last. the colour is stunning haunting luring even, truely a masterpice. I will have to commission an expensive but tasteful handmade frame, possibly rosewood or some recently extinct rainforest species. I can't say enough about the artists imagination. A collectors treasure.

 

[waldo]

You have no appreciation for art you cretienous bottom dweller. The lines are perfectly straight and the proportion compelling, notice the verticle arrangement of numerals to the right how they accend in a sort of a finger pointing somewhere but majesticly so, very elegant I think. Of course we save the best for last. the colour is stunning haunting luring even, truely a masterpice. I will have to commission an expensive but tasteful handmade frame, possibly rosewood or some recently extinct rainforest species. I can't say enough about the artists imagination. A collectors treasure.

you sir, are a connoisseur! Thankee.

 

[JLM]

And yet you continually reply to post after post after post. Claiming in your very arrogant way to be somehow "better" than those around you yet you play the same "games" you continually malign others for playing. That makes you hypocritical as well as contemptible. And that is before we even touch upon the vanity inherent in slapping up some C&P graph and a snarky reply in response to a genuine question from a forum member. You are no more interested in discussing the topic as those with whom you constantly whine and complain aren't here to discuss the topic. You're nothing more than a bandwagon fan boy who goes on the net to "talk" about global warming because it's "the hip thing to do".

Because people see through your bull doesn't make it any less bull.

And by the way, if I wanted to do a 'drive by', you wouldn't be getting up from it. :roll:

Well said, SLM!

 

[petros]

If you can't answer a multiple choice question from a Geology 110 class, there is no point in you continuing your psychobabble.

Don't google too hard.

 

[Locutus]

hahahahahahahahahaha...*breath*...hahahahahahahahahahahah...*whew*

 

[petros]

Where is the toque guy? I want to ask how life on the planet is going die if global temps return back to the 4C warmer normal it evolved in over the past 10Ka.

I think hairless man will do very well with normal Holocene temperature.

 

[taxslave]

is that you applying some sugar to get me to engage you? You're such a charmer, aren't you?



no - I'm the guy putting together longish detailed posts with visual aids; you know, like those graph thingees that appear to so incense you! :lol: You're the guy who can't string together more than a single one-liner grunted sentence... and even then... your grunts aren't even addressing the subject matter at hand. Yes, you clearly have a comfort zone... one that allows you to chirp from the sidelines without actually engaging on the subject matter that you're quite obviously incapable of speaking to.

All you are doing is regurgitating stuff other shills have put on here before. Nothing new except to you. If you really think graphs make your so called points valid you really are delusional.

hahahahahahahahahaha...*breath*...hahahahahahahahahahahah...*whew*

Is that with or without the million sq.km. they said could stay?

 

[waldo]

hahahahahahahahahaha...*breath*...hahahahahahahahahahahah...*whew*

at least the guy's not your regular go-to "Goddard guy"! :lol: Does fixating on a blogger's prediction... a blogger... does that allow you guys to just ignore the reality of actual Arctic sea-ice extent/volume long-term melting?

 

[taxslave]

feel free to dispute any of the graphed data presented! Of course you haven't the wherewithal to string together more than a single sentence... so you're a bit handicapped from the get-go... aren't you!




you keep chirping this! Of course you do... hey, here's a thought: why not try to figure out why that definition is used? Think you can?

do you think "ice free" means no ice will ever form again? Duh! Of course, the ice-free context is with regard to summer melt. Now... this will be a stretch for you, but try... outside of open ocean areas what kind of topography might get in the way of melting. Think now... think! Try it for a change... you might actually like it! :lol:

It wasn't me that claimed the Arctic would be ice free. Try thinking for yourself instead of C&P pretty little graphs and quotes from proven frauds.
Even more important if you are so sure the earth is heating up come up with a solution that does not include a transfer of wealth from have to have not countries and is applied equally to ALL countries at the same time.

 

[waldo]

Try thinking for yourself instead of C&P pretty little graphs and quotes from proven frauds.

you certainly have no standing... less than zero standing... to suggest (as you have) that NASA, NOAA, PIOMAS, etc.... are proven frauds! The very fact you would state such a thing is, again, simply a reflection on your displayed "Dunning-Kruger effect".

Even more important if you are so sure the earth is heating up come up with a solution that does not include a transfer of wealth from have to have not countries and is applied equally to ALL countries at the same time.

:mrgreen: ... and there we have it! If only these 2 bugaboos could be resolved for you... you'd get with the program!

- wealth transfer to countries significantly affected by the impacts of warming/climate change
- equitable wealth transfer
​

 

[taxslave]

you certainly have no standing... less than zero standing... to suggest (as you have) that NASA, NOAA, PIOMAS, etc.... are proven frauds! The very fact you would state such a thing is, again, simply a reflection on your displayed "Dunning-Kruger effect".



:mrgreen: ... and there we have it! If only these 2 bugaboos could be resolved for you... you'd get with the program!

- wealth transfer to countries significantly affected by the impacts of warming/climate change
- equitable wealth transfer
​

No but I wouldn't care too much if it was about cleaning up our act instead of transferring money from first world countries to third world or silly agreements like China not having to even start cutting back on emissions for another 15 years while we are expected to meet silly political motivated targets.
So can you add something constructive or just keep on being a shill for the global warming industry?

 

[petros]

Giving hut people solar panels only keeps them hut people. They need a grid.

 

[taxslave]

Giving them anything just keeps them where they are. Teaching them will improve their wealth.

 

[waldo]

No but I wouldn't care too much if it was about cleaning up our act instead of transferring money from first world countries to third world or silly agreements like China not having to even start cutting back on emissions for another 15 years while we are expected to meet silly political motivated targets.

the reason for such things as the "UN Green Climate fund" is to position a transfer of money to those countries most affected, most impacted by climate change... of course, those most affected countries are the countries that have contributed the least to emissions increase and they're the poorest counries that actually need assistance in dealing with, for example, adaptation - go figure, hey!

I'm not sure why you keep perpetuating this "China doesn't have to anything for 15 years nonsense"... I mean, I'd put down that same graphic I've trotted out a half-dozen times or so... but you wig out when graphs are displayed! Again, for China to meet that target peak point in 2030, it has to begin making changes today!... if nothing is done until "some peak" point is reached in 2030, that point will simply continue to rise... immediate cut-back is a nonsensical concept!

So can you add something constructive or just keep on being a shill for the global warming industry?

I appreciate anything that counters your pre/misconceptions, to you, is "shilling"... what makes you so bloody sure of your denierScreech... you read it on a denier blog or some tabloid only interested in sales/hits?

 

[Zipperfish]

It's no pet theory. It's proven science, something waaaay out of the realm of a drywaller.

Sceince isn't proven. You claim to be a scientist, but then you make posts like this.

 

[petros]

Sceince isn't proven. You claim to be a scientist, but then you make posts like this.

According to?

 

[petros]

Wicked graph. Climate change solved. It's all the CO2 released from the gypsum.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

 

[petros]

Hey Petros, do you find some posters are just like a perpetual carbuncle on the A$$, that need lancing?

Asses eh? That would be great place to sequester CO2 in calthrate form. Where the sun don't shine.

 

[Locutus]

Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate


Some commenters on the greenhouse equation believe that greenhouse gas radiative forcing controls the adiabatic lapse rate, and claim without any mathematics or evidence, that that's allegedly how greenhouse gases control the Earth surface temperature. We'll now show the reasons why this claim is incorrect:

1. The adiabatic lapse rate equation is

dT = (-g/Cp)*dh

where

dT = change in temperature
dh = change in height
g = gravitational constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

Thus change in temperature from the lapse rate is dependent upon 3 variables that have no dependence whatsoever upon radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. None.

more

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate