Astronaut Claims Climate Alarmism is Complete .. Bu .. Bunk

[dogtowner]

Facts such as the laws of modern physics are "idiotic" and "fantasy'. And backscatter is "bullshit." And cherry picked facts like some glacier didn't recede like it was predicted. I've seen those "facts". Most rightwing sheeple here have no idea of what science is relevant and what is rightwing smokescreen.

You can prrtend that they have been walking back data (hotest year just got put back to the 30's) pretending its been getting hotter when it has not (that was tough for east anglia to come clean on) and all the rest if you wish but i will not. If your back scattering was as you believe the increasing co2 would have made for hotter earth but it didnt come to pass.
And on and on it goes.

 

[GenSeneca]

Most rightwing sheeple here have no idea of what science is relevant and what is rightwing smokescreen.

Can you prove to be more than a Left-Wing Sheeple by offering some examples of "left wing smokescreen" on the subject? ....Or do you consider everything Pro-AGW to be 100% fact, with no smoke, no questionable authors or sources, and never any specious claims being used to push a political agenda?

 

[dogtowner]

Can you prove to be more than a Left-Wing Sheeple by offering some examples of "left wing smokescreen" on the subject? ....Or do you consider everything Pro-AGW to be 100% fact, with no smoke, no questionable authors or sources, and never any specious claims being used to push a political agenda?

Hes still talking 97%. Just sayin...

 

[GenSeneca]

Hes still talking 97%. Just sayin...

LOL good point...

 

[Texas_tea]

This is why liberalism is a mental disorder! No matter the fact .... no matter the topic, be it global warming or the US Constitution these sheeple cannot think for themselves or present a logic argument, all they can do is repeat the false talking points from the MSM and ignore the facts at hand ....

They blame the informed for listening to Fox News when all normal thinking citizens know that this data does not come from Fox News.

These individuals are sick .... they suffer from liberalism .... we all know that their post are insignificant .....

Have patients with these sick individuals ..... Vladimir Lenin called them "useful idiots" but, their infliction is much deeper than that!

 

[Lagboltz]

You can prrtend that they have been walking back data (hotest year just got put back to the 30's)

Climate change is not based on a 1934 statistical anomaly that happened in the US. The subject here is global climate change and not US climate change. That is exactly what is meant by cherry picking data. Historic temperature data is very jagged. This chart is the global change (not the US).

pretending its been getting hotter when it has not (that was tough for east anglia to come clean on) and all the rest if you wish but i will not.

Anglia was vindicated by 6 separate investigation panels. You can't just look at atmospheric temperature.

The sea level has been rising at an ever increasing rate.

The ocean is also part of the energy budget and is absorbing a tremendous amount of captured energy and causing a rising sea level by two means.
1. Hotter water expands .
2. Melting land ice raises the sea level.

It takes 320 times more calories to melt a gram of ice than it does to heat a gram of air by one degree C. So water level is a very important indicator. Atmospheric temperature is only one measure of the heat absorption.

If your back scattering was as you believe the increasing co2 would have made for hotter earth but it didnt come to pass.

And on and on it goes.

It isn't "my" back scattering. It is believed by all climate scientists. If there were no back scatter, the entire earth would be solid ice. I have no idea what CO2 contributes to back scatter.

 

[Lagboltz]

Can you prove to be more than a Left-Wing Sheeple by offering some examples of "left wing smokescreen" on the subject? ....Or do you consider everything Pro-AGW to be 100% fact, with no smoke, no questionable authors or sources, and never any specious claims being used to push a political agenda?

You are jumping to conclusions. I have never said I believe in AGW. Nobody here has shown any credible argument against it either. If you or anybody wants to believe in no AGW or even no warming at all, I really don't care. I'm serious.

But if you promote your cause by idiocy or name calling or liberal or communist labels, or bad science, I will call you on that. That is all that I have seen from you guys so far. And yes, I have seen "pundits" on Fox new doing exactly what you have been doing too.

 

[steveox]

Lagboltz explain this chart.

Now who's responsible for global warming 350,000-150,000 years ago? And Cars and air conditioners weren't invented yet.

 

[Lagboltz]

Lagboltz explain this chart.
Now who's responsible for global warming 350,000-150,000 years ago? And Cars and air conditioners weren't invented yet.

If you can explain it I will listen, but I'm not going to look for the details. All I know off the top of my head is that there were several large cycles of climate change throughout the millennia, and there were 5 great mass extinctions of species. Are we heading for a huge change? I have no idea. What are your thoughts and why did you post this?

 

[steveox]

To prove a point it goes in cycles. Has nothing to do with man. There is no Climate Change. Even it gets hotter we can't do anything about it and just learn to adapt. All liberals see is creating taxes like this for example

It doesn't solve the problem. Its the government is stealing more of you're money.

 

[Lagboltz]

To prove a point it goes in cycles. Has nothing to do with man. There is no Climate Change. Even it gets hotter we can't do anything about it and just learn to adapt.

Yes, the cycles were irregular and some came from massive climatic events:

Supervolcanos such as the Yellowstone Caldera ejected around 240 cubic miles of material into the sky.
Large asteroids such as the Chicxulub asteroid, about 110 mi in diameter is correlated with a mass extinction.
A run-away change can also happen when the biosphere under long-term stress undergoes a smaller short-term shock.

Will CO2 emissions trigger another run-away climatic event? Many think so. Some don't.

Showing a chart of temperature over the millennia does not demonstrate anything about how a current rapid increase in CO2 might shock the climate or biosphere. You have to think more deeply than that.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are jumping to conclusions. I have never said I believe in AGW.

I see... Then you'd only be interested in pointing out that the climate is changing... Which is like saying the sun is on fire. You wouldn't get many arguments.

I thought you believed, and are actively trying to convince others, that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing the climate to change... Is that an accurate summation of your position on climate change? Did I leave anything out... Like mankind's ever increasing production of CO2 acting to accelerate the rate of climate change? ...Cuz that's AGW.
If you don't think government should do something about the American people's growing contributions to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then when I asked for you to point out a Left wing smokescreen for a political agenda, you should have pointed to AGW as the left wing smokescreen that it is.

If you don't believe in it, then admit it's a leftist smokescreen, they're the ones pushing it.

 

[Texas_tea]

If you don't believe in it, then admit it's a leftist smokescreen, they're the ones pushing it.

LOL .... the sick liberal mind will never accept the facts you are presenting!

 

[Lagboltz]

I see... Then you'd only be interested in pointing out that the climate is changing... Which is like saying the sun is on fire. You wouldn't get many arguments.

I have seen many people here argue that the climate is not changing. They often refer to data tampering at Anglia or the last 15 years of level temperatures as proof.

I thought you believed, and are actively trying to convince others, that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing the climate to change.

I have no influence over what you people want to believe from your gut. If you want to believe there is no AGW, fine, but you are replacing some well established science with crap arguments and acting like assholes in the process. As I said earlier I have no idea what CO2 contributes to back scatter.

If you don't think government should do something about the American people's growing contributions to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then when I asked for you to point out a Left wing smokescreen for a political agenda, you should have pointed to AGW as the left wing smokescreen that it is.

If you don't believe in it, then admit it's a leftist smokescreen, they're the ones pushing it.

I'm not interested in your emotional politics. The scientific findings should be cause for serious thought but you are more interested in attacking liberals. If you don't believe in AGW why don't you come up with legitimate technical reasons. I can easily disassociate from the politics but you guys can't.

 

[GenSeneca]

I can easily disassociate from the politics but you guys can't.

I had asked for you to provide evidence of that claim and you went off on a tangent. So I shall accept it as the only proof you can to offer to substantiate your claim:

On the one hand, you deny belief in AGW. On the other, you refer to AGW as well established science, and it's opponents as a bunch of assholes with crap arguments...

You consider that disassociating with the politics? (Oh, that must be why you accused me of emotional politics.. I think you've got the two terms confused.)

But if you promote your cause by idiocy or name calling or liberal or communist labels, or bad science, I will call you on that. That is all that I have seen from you guys so far.

I've called you on yours, is this all we should expect to see from you... Fallacies and self contradictions?