Global warming myth is dead: More cold temperatures, no hurricanes

[MCWAY]

Because it has a runaway greenhouse effect, increased co2 leads to melting permafrost, increased methane leaks (like we are seeing) which speeds up the process creating a positive feedback loop leading to runaway greenhouse effects. If we continue to increase C02 to never before seen levels, this is the consequence. It's history also gives us some feedback on what is likely to occur, the etiology matters not, the effects are the same. Anything else?

I also did not say it was created by man, another lie from the professional liar.

"We know greenhouse gases can destroy a planet, we have VENUS as a model, hence you assertion that we didn't or can't cause a shift is ridiculous. We are pumping out more and more greenhouse gases, at some point it will become runaway and we will all have to deal with it."

You realize man isn't the only source of green house gases correct? there are many, much worse then Carbon dioxide. What you should of inferred is that greenhouse gases can create a runaway effect that can become very serious, it's a natural consequence of excessive gases that trap heat. Simple science. What does jesus say about climatology?

You should quite now to avoid further beat downs. How arrogant are you to think you know the outcomes without actually knowning climatology? I guess that arrogance stems from having all of the secrets of the universe.

I never claimed man was the lone source of greenhouse gases, O goofy one.

You used a planet which never had human life to show that greenhouse gases will destroy a planet for human life. How dumb is that? OH! We're talking about Necrosis, here.

Since you have no idea how much greenhouse gases started with Venus, in the first place, your claim about "runaway" gases (which you keep harping are caused by man) falls apart.

As for avoiding your so-called beat downs, you couldn't beat an egg with an electric whisk. At this point, you make the case for toenails being among the basic food groups.

[MCWAY]

Actually CO2 cools the atmosphere

SHHHH! There you go with that common-sense and actual fact stuff.

Treehugging propaganda comes first, facts be damned.

[Necrosis]

I never claimed man was the lone source of greenhouse gases, O goofy one.

You used a planet which never had human life to show that greenhouse gases will destroy a planet for human life. How dumb is that? OH! We're talking about Necrosis, here.

Since you have no idea how much greenhouse gases started with Venus, in the first place, your claim about "runaway" gases (which you keep harping are caused by man) falls apart.

As for avoiding your so-called beat downs, you couldn't beat an egg with an electric whisk. At this point, you make the case for toenails being among the basic food groups.

Well you implied it by stating venus has no humans.

It's absolutely not dumb at all, planets behave similarly and we can learn about possible outcomes by studying them, only a moron would suggest otherwise.  It;s done quite often actually, so you are showing your ass here.

I never claimed that runaway greenhouse effects on venus are caused by men, another lie from the resident liar.

Intellectually this is a massacre. you are left misrepresneting my position, arguing semantics, creating strawmen etc. you are flailing which makes sense since you side with the nutjobs and minority and haven't stated one pertinent fact yet.

[Necrosis]

SHHHH! There you go with that common-sense and actual fact stuff.

Treehugging propaganda comes first, facts be damned.

LOLOLOLOL.

your right increasing Co2 has the benefit of cooling the planet, case closed, problem solved. It's net effect is heating, to suggest otherwise is to be a retard.

[MCWAY]

LOLOLOLOL.

your right increasing Co2 has the benefit of cooling the planet, case closed, problem solved. It's net effect is heating, to suggest otherwise is to be a retard.

Didn't you say something about NASA, O mush-brained one?

http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/


Incidentally, the word is "you're", not "your".

[MCWAY]

Well you implied it by stating venus has no humans.

It's absolutely not dumb at all, planets behave similarly and we can learn about possible outcomes by studying them, only a moron would suggest otherwise.  It;s done quite often actually, so you are showing your ass here.

I never claimed that runaway greenhouse effects on venus are caused by men, another lie from the resident liar.

Intellectually this is a massacre. you are left misrepresneting my position, arguing semantics, creating strawmen etc. you are flailing which makes sense since you side with the nutjobs and minority and haven't stated one pertinent fact yet.

Facts aren't based on consensus, Mr. Clueless. 2+2 = 4, no matter how many goobers think it's 5.

The facts say the planet hasn't warmed in nearly two decades (at least), regardless of all the chirping by treehugging goofs like you.

Polar caps were supposed to have melted a decade and a half ago; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Your bleating and wailing about fossil fuels is driven by the cracked mantra of man-caused global warming.

And try reading what I actually said, for once. I never cited you as blaming Venus' greenhouse gases on man. I pointed out your cracked-skull attempt to use a planet that never possessed human life as an example of "runaway" greenhouse gases, as if the gases on that planet as it is today isn't standard fare for it.

 

[Necrosis]

Didn't you say something about NASA, O mush-brained one?

http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/


Incidentally, the word is "you're", not "your".

Oh i no you're, and know, and all of the bullshit you seem to care about. Glad you posted this article, this will be a beacon to all that Mcway can not critically appraise something, will believe anything to suit his position and is a liar.

"NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface"

Pay attention retard, it reflects solar radiation from the UPPER atomosphere, the exact same thing it does in the lower atmosphere, it traps (ie blocks) heat. This is exactly why it's a problem you INCREDIBLE FUCKING MORON.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

holy fuck you are stupid.

[Necrosis]

Facts aren't based on consensus, Mr. Clueless. 2+2 = 4, no matter how many goobers think it's 5.

The facts say the planet hasn't warmed in nearly two decades (at least), regardless of all the chirping by treehugging goofs like you.

Polar caps were supposed to have melted a decade and a half ago; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Your bleating and wailing about fossil fuels is driven by the cracked mantra of man-caused global warming.

And try reading what I actually said, for once. I never cited you as blaming Venus' greenhouse gases on man. I pointed out your cracked-skull attempt to use a planet that never possessed human life as an example of "runaway" greenhouse gases, as if the gases on that planet as it is today isn't standard fare for it.

 

Consensus in a scientific community is reached based on facts, they aren't on your side, otherwise more people would agree with you, not .1% of climatologists.

What polar caps? by how much? by when? who made this prediction? you realize they are rapidly melting in the antartic at a rapid rate, much faster then the artic, something that was predicted based on something climatologists call evidence.

With regards to Venus, just stop you have no idea what you are talking about, jesus, do a google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

Fuck I can't believe you exist. How do you function?

"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases."[8][9]

We have new evidence that liquid water was certainly on venus. In fact, we could live on venus if we could like a couple hundred kilometeres up, it's breathable, right temp, not caustic etc.

[whork]

Facts aren't based on consensus, Mr. Clueless. 2+2 = 4, no matter how many goobers think it's 5.

The facts say the planet hasn't warmed in nearly two decades (at least), regardless of all the chirping by treehugging goofs like you.

Link?



Polar caps were supposed to have melted a decade and a half ago; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Your bleating and wailing about fossil fuels is driven by the cracked mantra of man-caused global warming.

And try reading what I actually said, for once. I never cited you as blaming Venus' greenhouse gases on man. I pointed out your cracked-skull attempt to use a planet that never possessed human life as an example of "runaway" greenhouse gases, as if the gases on that planet as it is today isn't standard fare for it.

 

[dario73]

You are so stupid. I have posted links on this thread and many other threads PROVING that the planet has not warmed in over a decade. More and more scientists have confirmed this is true.

Idiots like you just choose to reject all of it because Al Gore infected your tiny brains with lies. You provide some evidence to the contrary. You can't. Period.

[dario73]

I thought libtards said that it was settled science?

It isn't and never will be BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.
Here are two more scientists that have come to their senses:

Leo vs. science: vanishing evidence for climate change

http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis.”
 
The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says.
 
But he has identified the wrong monster. It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization.
 
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled

Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.

Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.
 
And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.

Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

Consider:
 • According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
 •Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
 • Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
 • A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

[dario73]

Link: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

Consider:
 • According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
 
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
 
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
 
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

[Necrosis]

Oh god, no dario is parroting another fraud like coach.

Mr. Gordon Fulks ladies and gentlemen, a physicist with no education in climatology has one hundred scientists on his side.

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/

"As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science."

This mother fucker hasn't published shit in the field ever, and the last time he did science was in 1975 you fucking moron.

He does no science and works at a right wing think tank. How stupid are you people? you will believe anything to suit your bias.

[Necrosis]

This dude was also canned from his job for being a raging moron. He supported this slideshow, which is all politics and fuckign conspiracy theories, he presnted these arguments as such was fired, namely for being un ethical.


http://www.slideshare.net/sholom770/global-warming-cracked-open

[MCWAY]

Consensus in a scientific community is reached based on facts, they aren't on your side, otherwise more people would agree with you, not .1% of climatologists.

What polar caps? by how much? by when? who made this prediction? you realize they are rapidly melting in the antartic at a rapid rate, much faster then the artic, something that was predicted based on something climatologists call evidence.

With regards to Venus, just stop you have no idea what you are talking about, jesus, do a google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

Fuck I can't believe you exist. How do you function?

"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases."[8][9]

We have new evidence that liquid water was certainly on venus. In fact, we could live on venus if we could like a couple hundred kilometeres up, it's breathable, right temp, not caustic etc.

Once again, you leave your brain at the door and rely on a consensus of quacks, just like consensus of alchemists who swore lead could be turned to gold.

Notice the word, "speculated". It's just like the treehugging blather on global warming which has been rendered inconclusive at best or flat-out false at worst.

You can thank the global warming poster boy, Al Gore, for the polar cap debacle.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-gone-now

In fact, didn't some treehuggers get stuck in some ice (that wasn't supposed to be there) for a week ?

[2Thick]

Once again, you leave your brain at the door and rely on a consensus of quacks, just like consensus of alchemists who swore lead could be turned to gold.

Notice the word, "speculated". It's just like the treehugging blather on global warming which has been rendered inconclusive at best or flat-out false at worst.

You can thank the global warming poster boy, Al Gore, for the polar cap debacle.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-gone-now

In fact, didn't some treehuggers get stuck in some ice (that wasn't supposed to be there) for a week ?

Gore got filthy stinkin' rich off global warming and also off insider trading based upon nonpublic info he was privy to as a senator as well. It was perfectly legal for congressmen to do such for many years. But if you or I had done the same thing ol' Al did when he did it, we'd have been put in jail and labeled criminals.

[Necrosis]

Once again, you leave your brain at the door and rely on a consensus of quacks, just like consensus of alchemists who swore lead could be turned to gold.

Notice the word, "speculated". It's just like the treehugging blather on global warming which has been rendered inconclusive at best or flat-out false at worst.

You can thank the global warming poster boy, Al Gore, for the polar cap debacle.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-gone-now

In fact, didn't some treehuggers get stuck in some ice (that wasn't supposed to be there) for a week ?

LOL.

Alchemy was as advanced as climatology with computer simulated models, massive data bases, multiple lines of evidence etc. Alchemy existed when things like religion were invented because facts didn't matter, like they don't to you.

You are being embarrassed moron, you posted a bullshit article takign a NASA news blip out context, then when raped you just moved to the next lie. Do you know deep down you are a liar and charlatan? is there any sense of shame left? how much can you lie?

[RRKore]

Oh god, no dario is parroting another fraud like coach.

Mr. Gordon Fulks ladies and gentlemen, a physicist with no education in climatology has one hundred scientists on his side.

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/

"As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science."

This mother fucker hasn't published shit in the field ever, and the last time he did science was in 1975 you fucking moron.

He does no science and works at a right wing think tank. How stupid are you people? you will believe anything to suit your bias.

Where you at, Dario? 

Did you do any reading about Gordon Fulks before you posted his words o' wisdom?

[Primemuscle]

I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had one of the hottest and longest summers since I moved here in 1966. The forests around Estacada are burning down right now. Scientist suggest this is our hottest summer on record....ever. -Doesn't seem like things are cooling down to me.

[Necrosis]

I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had one of the hottest and longest summers since I moved here in 1966. The forests around Estacada are burning down right now. Scientist suggest this is our hottest summer on record....ever. -Doesn't seem like things are cooling down to me.

They aren't these people are using false data and outright lies like Dario is.

What boggles my mind is why? aburpt shifts in climate are NEVER good.

[dario73]

Oh god, no dario is parroting another fraud like coach.

Mr. Gordon Fulks ladies and gentlemen, a physicist with no education in climatology has one hundred scientists on his side.

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/

"As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science."

This mother fucker hasn't published shit in the field ever, and the last time he did science was in 1975 you fucking moron.

He does no science and works at a right wing think tank. How stupid are you people? you will believe anything to suit your bias.

And how does any of that contradict any of these facts, you nitwit?

 According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
 
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
 
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
 
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

[dario73]

Where you at, Dario?  

Did you do any reading about Gordon Fulks before you posted his words o' wisdom?

I am right here, sheeple.

This is how I responded. In other words prove these facts wrong instead of attacking the messenger, as you libtards like to do when the facts are not on your side. And these are not evidence created by Mr. Fulks.

And how does any of that contradict any of these facts, you nitwit?

 According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
 
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
 
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
 
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

[RRKore]

I am right here, sheeple.

This is how I responded. In other words prove these facts wrong instead of attacking the messenger, as you libtards like to do when the facts are not on your side. And these are not evidence created by Mr. Fulks.

Hey, you could be right that this guy who seems to be some sort of crackpot could be 100% right and other scientists with training & education that is much more current could be flat wrong.  Who knows?  It's a funny world sometimes.

But you're not answering the question so I'll ask again:  
Did you know this negative stuff about Gordon Fulks before you made your post?

BTW, you should say, "THIS is not evidence" not "THESE is not evidence"  --  Grammatically, "evidence" is a singular noun, my ESL-Getbig brotha.  

[MCWAY]

I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had one of the hottest and longest summers since I moved here in 1966. The forests around Estacada are burning down right now. Scientist suggest this is our hottest summer on record....ever. -Doesn't seem like things are cooling down to me.

Then I'll trade you. I live in the Midwest and this is the coldest it's been in decades. Last week, the temps were under 70 degrees. During my date with my wife Saturday night, it was freezing.

[MCWAY]

LOL.

Alchemy was as advanced as climatology with computer simulated models, massive data bases, multiple lines of evidence etc. Alchemy existed when things like religion were invented because facts didn't matter, like they don't to you.

You are being embarrassed moron, you posted a bullshit article takign a NASA news blip out context, then when raped you just moved to the next lie. Do you know deep down you are a liar and charlatan? is there any sense of shame left? how much can you lie?
 

Congratulations, Doofus! You're down to 4 toes.

Listen to what you just said: Computer-simulated models....not ACTUAL measures of temperatures but simulations, ones shown to be dead wrong time again.

And what's with this talk about rape? Is there something you wish to share with the class, not that there's anything wrong with that?

Of course, you ducked and dodged Gore's miserably failed predictions on the polar caps, not to mention the numbskulls stuck in the very ice that said melted away. To top it all off, they needed other ships, POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS (gasp!!), to save their sorry behinds.

Alchemy and climatologists peddle BS, despite what actual facts and reality show.

Somewhere in that ill-used sponge of yours, disguised as a brain, there's a clue dying to be used.