Remember me
▼ Content

22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming



Page 1 of 212>
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming03-07-2021 13:03
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(139)
Below is an article I wrote last year putting together 22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/

Quote from the article:

This post lists 22 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) which claims human CO2-emissions are dangerously heating up the Earth's atmosphere, requiring urgent mitigating measures to counteract. It's my opinion that anthropogenic global warming is minuscule at only 0.0018°C per 1ppmv of CO2 and the punitive green-taxes, carbon offset programs and disruptive geoengineering projects are all unnecessary and a waste of time and resources.

1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect. The measured radiative forcing at the surface from CO2 from 2000-2010 was 0.2 W/m2 from a 22ppmv increase (Feldman et al 2015) which works out at about 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv. However, because of the logarithmic nature of CO2's radiative forcing, regular 1ppmv increments of CO2 would produce ever diminishing increments of radiative forcing and so 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv would be a generous linear relationship to use as of 2020. According to the Keeling Curve, CO2 is increasing at the rate of around 2.5ppmv/year. Therefore, the annual radiative forcing from CO2 would be about 0.025 W/m2 and that would be sufficient to raise the global temperature at the surface by about 0.0046°C under the S-B law*1 (assuming none gets absorbed in the evaporation of seawater). Far from being catastrophic, such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in the inaccuracies of the measurements.



2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour. The planet's average surface temperature is currently about 15°C while its blackbody temperature is -18°C and the temperature difference of about 33°C represents a large amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse. In fact it amounts to about 153 W/m2. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is on average 1% (source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet) while the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%. Hence water vapour is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, and pound for pound, it also has a far greater potency than CO2 as well because it absorbs IR-energy over a much greater spectrum. CO2 comprises approximately 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse by volume and since it is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour it follows logically that it cannot be contributing more than 6 W/m2 (4%) to the greenhouse effect of 153 W/m2 whereas water vapour should contribute upwards of 146 W/m2 (96%).

❝Water vapour is by far and away the most important greenhouse gas... even if all other greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98% of the current greenhouse effect❞ -- Richard Lindzen



3) The 13C/12C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere. The atmospheric life-time for CO2 has been confirmed empirically, by observations of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio. Around 99% of atmospheric CO2 consists of the 12C isotope with the remaining 1% consisting of 13C. The 13C/12C ratio is commonly referred to as δ13C. δ13C is the difference between the ratio of 13C/12C in a substance compared to a standard of Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite minus one. The number is multiplied by one-thousand and expressed as "per mil" (parts per thousand). Anthropogenic CO2 has an approximate δ13C of around –29 (with values ranging between -20 to -44) and natural biogenic CO2 is similar with a δ13C of -26. The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ13C of around -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans. The CO2 in the atmosphere has a δ13C of about –8.3. So, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is 6%*2 (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7) with the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. 94%) being isotopically-indistinguishable*3 from natural sources.


Nathan-D
Edited on 03-07-2021 13:18
03-07-2021 13:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
One Punch Man wrote:...22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming....

Good stuff One Punch! Here was the last discussion: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming-d6-e2950.php

We'd left off here:
tmiddles wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
I believe that the CO2 increase is most likely coming from the oceans, ...
https://www.quora.com/What-if-it-is-warming-that-is-causing-an-increase-in-the-concentration-of-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-instead-of-the-reverse/answer/Richard-Evans-213
So I don't think this is presented as a "chicken or egg" theory correct?, but one where there is a different source other than CO2 that is causing warming. I still need to read Evan's theory as well as any rebuttal I can find. Maybe here:
https://skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

One Punch Man wrote:...the high-temperatures on Venus need to be accounted for by something else other than solar radiation which is supposedly very weak on Venus despite it being closer to the Sun.
Weak at ground level but the atmosphere is getting that radiance right? I personally think Venus is the place to study to really figure out what the deal is. Why wouldn't the gases of the atmosphere be free to accumulate thermal energy absorbed from solar radiance? Do you consider the oceans of Earth to be a "heat trap"?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-heat-does-the-ocean-trap-robots-find-out/
Why wouldn't an atmosphere as incredibly dense as what you find of Venus do the same?
It's like if I put a pot on the stove full of say refried beans and don't stir it (acts like a solid) the edges will burn while the middle is comparatively cool. If I stir it continuously (acts like a liquid) the entire mix will rise in temperature together. Different portions of the mix will take turns being the outer surface before flowing back into the middle. Doesn't it make sense that thick mix of matter that is free to flow and convect will soak up a lot of energy and that Venus is proof?...


I'd like to propose a universally relevant question to add:
How do we determine we are skeptical of something?

I'm not, for example, skeptical that the Earth is not a ball and may in fact be flat.

You have 22 points of skepticism and presumable they are 22 "worthy" grounds for skepticism. So how is a credible doubt developed?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
03-07-2021 14:21
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(139)
tmiddles wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:...22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming....

Good stuff One Punch! Here was the last discussion

Thanks. I have noticed that the more established members on this board seem to be very against the greenhouse gas theory and so probably won't respond well to this post because it assumes that CO2 and water vapour are having a real small warming. But the article also concludes that the warming we have experienced in recent times can be explained by changes in cloud-cover and also touches upon other points independent of the warming effect of CO2.


Nathan-D
03-07-2021 19:47
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.


03-07-2021 21:36
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.



This is only if we can't reduce ODSs and run out of sources of CO2. Hydrocarbons and ODSs really do need to be reduced. Basically, if the ozone layer becomes depleted enough, we won't be able to grow crops and phytoplankton (fish love the stuff, think food chain) will probably die off among other things. We do have time and how we use it is up to us.

p.s., @All, my primary concern would be what threat does industrialization pose to the ozone layer? About everything else we do, we can survive/adapt or adjust to. The ozone layer supports us having food to eat.

Edited on 03-07-2021 22:06
03-07-2021 22:16
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.



This is only if we can't reduce ODSs and run out of sources of CO2. Hydrocarbons and ODSs really do need to be reduced. Basically, if the ozone layer becomes depleted enough, we won't be able to grow crops and phytoplankton (fish love the stuff, think food chain) will probably die off among other things. We do have time and how we use it is up to us.

p.s., @All, my primary concern would be what threat does industrialization pose to the ozone layer? About everything else we do, we can survive/adapt or adjust to. The ozone layer supports us having food to eat.


If Earth lost its protection from Sun's radiation, that would be existential threat.



Edited on 03-07-2021 22:23
03-07-2021 22:42
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.



This is only if we can't reduce ODSs and run out of sources of CO2. Hydrocarbons and ODSs really do need to be reduced. Basically, if the ozone layer becomes depleted enough, we won't be able to grow crops and phytoplankton (fish love the stuff, think food chain) will probably die off among other things. We do have time and how we use it is up to us.

p.s., @All, my primary concern would be what threat does industrialization pose to the ozone layer? About everything else we do, we can survive/adapt or adjust to. The ozone layer supports us having food to eat.


If Earth lost its protection from Sun's radiation, that would be existential threat.



Just a quick question here. Does Venus have an ozone layer?
03-07-2021 23:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
One Punch Man wrote: [those] against the greenhouse gas theory and so probably won't respond well to this post because it assumes that CO2 and water vapour are having a real small warming...


Well there you have the difference between being skeptical and being a denier. For the mob out there (and the few trolls here) dedicated to "fighting" against the forces of conspiracy trying to dupe us all there is little hope of exploring anything because they aren't trying to figure anything out.

So what about this question: What is a sane/sound approach to skepticism?

I would say that the conspiracy formula (which is neither left wing, right wing or pro anything in particular, but simply a tool anyone can use to believe anything) is an easily identified and dismissed BS skepticism. Though it has never been more popular. That I would boil down to:
1- A position a person wants to believe
2- Belief in an enemy capable of hiding or manufacturing evidence to discredit that position.
3- Should evidence be missing or contradictory simply refer to step 2.

Your 22 points depart from this in that you are working from NASA data. To suggest that NASA simply falsified all the data would be the conspiracy theorists blank check to believe anything they want.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 03-07-2021 23:07
03-07-2021 23:05
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Edited on 03-07-2021 23:27
04-07-2021 00:01
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.
Edited on 04-07-2021 00:10
04-07-2021 00:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


One Punch Man wrote:Below is an article I wrote last year putting together 22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/

Let's break it down, shall we?

1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect.

False. CO2 has zero effect. The word "trivial" in this context specifically implies a non-zero amount, albeit very small. The laws of thermodynamics are clear that temperature can only increase with additional energy. No substance anywhere in the universe, not even CO2, has any special magical superpower to cause any body of matter anywhere in the universe, not even the earth, to somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.

Your statement should read "CO2 has no warming effect." Otherwise, let me know when you can cook food by simply spraying enough CO2 on it.

2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour.

False. Water vapor doesn't have any more magical superpower than CO2 to violate thermodynamics and to somehow cause a body of matter to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Otherwise, let me know when you can cook food by spraying enough water vapor on it.

Your points 1) and 2) should be combined to read "No substance has any warming effect. Only additional energy can cause a temperature increase."

3) The 13C/12C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere.

This is stupid. It should read "No CO2 molecule has any metadata tags specifying either its age or origin."

4) The demonstrable impotence of atmospheric CO2 as the driver of global warming is evidenced by the fact that from 1998 to 2012 the global temperature increased at the risible rate of 0.05°C per decade (source: IPCC AR5) despite the fact humans emitted a total of 30% of our cumulative emissions since 1850 (see graph here).

This is stupid. No human, organization or government has ever been able to compute the earth's actual average global temperature to any usable margin of error. As such, no human, organization or government has ever known whether earth's average temperature is increasing or decreasing at any given point in time to within any usable margin of error.

All numbers/figures on the matter have been pure fabrication and not the result of any valid dataset.

5) CO2 behaves logarithmically and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the less warming each molecule should have.

This is just stupid. You should simply title your article "I Suck at Chemistry"

6) The ice-core data is not representative of true paleo-climate CO2 levels.

This is an entirely true statement (if you ignore the unfortunate word choice of "paleo-climate"). You should have just left that as a stand-alone statement ... but you felt the need to keep writing until you said something boneheaded.

Yes, CO2 moves around within ice for a multitude of reasons. All you should have written is that ice core data gives us a somewhat inaccurate look at the history of CO2 levels at only one square foot of real estate on the planet's surface, and we don't know for which square foot of real estate since ice moves/flows relatively rapidly. The ice at a particular depth started out at a different geographic location when it was on the surface.

Atmospheric CO2 is not evenly distributed. Getting inaccurate readings on historical levels of atmospheric CO2 for unknown points on the earth's surface provides no useful information. No conclusions of any type can be drawn.

7) The rate of warming is not unusual.

There is no presumption of any warming to be considered unusual.

8) Global warming is explainable by clouds.

There is no formal/scientific specification for the buzzword "Global Warming." Hence, there is no presumption of any Global Warming that needs to be explained or that is somehow explained by clouds.

9) Natural variation within a regular interglacial climate regime is well able to account for the trivial and mild climate changes and temperature shifts that we have seen so far and we have no objective reason to think that anything unprecedented is happening to the climate at all.

Here you have a sentence that says nothing; it is based on many totally undefined terms. Just delete this one.

10) Anthropogenic CO2 should not take hundreds or thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere.

This is stupidity in its raw form.

1) You use the word "should." Are you under the impression that CO2 somehow decays? Is there some rate at which CO2 should leave the atmosphere? ... and where should it go? How should it leave?

2) Why would any rational adult believe that any CO2 is somehow on a path to leave the atmosphere except to continue in the standard cycle of being consumed by plants and thereafter being released into the atmosphere again?

I'll let you in on a little secret. CO2 is heavier than most other atmospheric molecules so it works its way downward towards the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. the surface, where it is greedily gobbled up by plants that currently receive dangerously far too little of it from the atmosphere (this is why all commercial greenhouses and nurseries pump vast quantities of CO2 into their environments for the plants to thrive instead of "removing" CO2 which would kill them outright).

Remember that most of the earth's surface is covered by ocean, the surface of which is loaded with plant life that quickly eats up that CO2 just like any other plant. As long as we have a surface covered with plants there will be no problem of CO2 somehow accumulating in our atmosphere.

11) There's a widespread misconception that the IPCC's AR4 and AR5 reports are based on an overwhelming amount of peer-review science.

This statement broadcasts that you are scientifically illiterate. There is no such thing as peer-reviewed science. None of the science that we have was ever "peer reviewed." Nobody owns science and no one's permission or "review" is needed for science to be created.

I know what you desperately want to say but no, no one's review is ever required. People who throw around the term "peer review" are scientifically illiterate morons who have no understanding that the scientific method is the test for science, not any human's opinion.

12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations.

False. No human has ever formally defined the global Climate therefore there has never been any Climate models. If there were a Climate model then one could extract the formal specification and test it, but alas this is not the case. As such, there have been no observations that refute any non-existent predictive performance by any non-existent Climate models.

I know, I know, ... you desperately want to make the grand mistake of confusing the term "model" for "computer program." You want to claim that computer programs are just randomly thrown together and are not implementations of any model.

You're not a software engineer. Ask me how I know.

13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity.

Climate is a completely undefined buzzword. That makes Climate sensitivity a completely undefined buzzword as well. The IPCC's fault is not in overstating Climate sensitivity but in not unambiguously defining it and nonetheless continuing to use it.

14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse.

This is a reason to not trust the media, not to somehow be skeptical about Global Warming.

15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth and more CO2 would enhance the growth-rate of photosynthetic organisms.

Bing-bing-bing ... we have a winner. This should be your opening point and your thesis statement. CO2 is good, it is not bad. We need more of it and it has no magical superpower to destroy the planet.

16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2.

"Solar Forcing" is undefined. As such, it is absurd to think that someone somehow measured this undefined thing ... in the past.

There is no such thing as a "forcing" in science, ergo one must assume the intended meaning is the colloquial one which means "miracle." As far as I know, there are no known units of measure for miracles nor any technology to measure miracles.

17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented,

The ocean is not rising to any discernible extent. Any rational adult can verify the ocean is not rising.

18) Compelling evidence the IPCC's models misrepresent the Earth's climate is shown in the graph below.

There is no defined global Climate for the IPCC to misrepresent. The entire concept is a pure Marxism-based fabrication.

19) Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%).

Yes, this is the tmiddles delusion that he places in the "What we know" category. It is not a reason to be skeptical of Global Warming so much as it is a preferred way for warmizombies to announce that they are scientifically illiterate losers.

Nobody knows what Venus' average temperature is. Of course there are many people like tmiddles who will tell you that the average temperature of the entire planet of Venus is "what we know" because of a thermally stressed (to the point of being destroyed) landing vehicle's handful of uncalibrated and unverified readings in one unknown local area and elevation of the bottom Venus' atmosphere.

Venus is presumably very hot due to its proximity to the sun. Any other specific claims about Venus are fabrications ... especially the ones on Wikipedia.

(note: I notice that you try dabbling in math and physics on this one. Don't. You look really silly. You also include the word "albedo" which is an immediate red flag that you aren't talking about physics and that you don't know what you are talking about. Stay away from discussions that use the word "albedo" and pay more attention to arguments based on "emissivity" [the correct term used in blackbody science])

20) The threat from methane has been overblown.

There is no methane threat for anyone to overblow.

21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life.

"Ocean Acidification!" is the cry of scientifically illiterate morons. There is so much wrong with it that it doesn't merit any effort addressing.

Ocean Acidification Debunked
Coral Bleaching Debunked

The earth's natural geological processes make the ocean alkaline, which means that we can expect the ocean to (slowly) continue to become increasingly alkaline over time. Currently the Navy Research Labs generally treats the ocean as having an 8.2 pH while recognizing that pH is simply not uniform throughout the ocean.

22) The positive effects of global warming to me outweigh the negatives.

There is no Global Warming. Zero positive effects do not somehow outweigh the equivalently zero negative effects.

04-07-2021 00:27
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
IBdaMann wrote:


One Punch Man wrote:Below is an article I wrote last year putting together 22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/

Let's break it down, shall we?

1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect.

False. CO2 has zero effect. The word "trivial" in this context specifically implies a non-zero amount, albeit very small. The laws of thermodynamics are clear that temperature can only increase with additional energy. No substance anywhere in the universe, not even CO2, has any special magical superpower to cause any body of matter anywhere in the universe, not even the earth, to somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.

Your statement should read "CO2 has no warming effect." Otherwise, let me know when you can cook food by simply spraying enough CO2 on it.

2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour.

False. Water vapor doesn't have any more magical superpower than CO2 to violate thermodynamics and to somehow cause a body of matter to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Otherwise, let me know when you can cook food by spraying enough water vapor on it.

Your points 1) and 2) should be combined to read "No substance has any warming effect. Only additional energy can cause a temperature increase."

3) The 13C/12C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere.

This is stupid. It should read "No CO2 molecule has any metadata tags specifying either its age or origin."

4) The demonstrable impotence of atmospheric CO2 as the driver of global warming is evidenced by the fact that from 1998 to 2012 the global temperature increased at the risible rate of 0.05°C per decade (source: IPCC AR5) despite the fact humans emitted a total of 30% of our cumulative emissions since 1850 (see graph here).

This is stupid. No human, organization or government has ever been able to compute the earth's actual average global temperature to any usable margin of error. As such, no human, organization or government has ever known whether earth's average temperature is increasing or decreasing at any given point in time to within any usable margin of error.

All numbers/figures on the matter have been pure fabrication and not the result of any valid dataset.

5) CO2 behaves logarithmically and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the less warming each molecule should have.

This is just stupid. You should simply title your article "I Suck at Chemistry"

6) The ice-core data is not representative of true paleo-climate CO2 levels.

This is an entirely true statement (if you ignore the unfortunate word choice of "paleo-climate"). You should have just left that as a stand-alone statement ... but you felt the need to keep writing until you said something boneheaded.

Yes, CO2 moves around within ice for a multitude of reasons. All you should have written is that ice core data gives us a somewhat inaccurate look at the history of CO2 levels at only one square foot of real estate on the planet's surface, and we don't know for which square foot of real estate since ice moves/flows relatively rapidly. The ice at a particular depth started out at a different geographic location when it was on the surface.

Atmospheric CO2 is not evenly distributed. Getting inaccurate readings on historical levels of atmospheric CO2 for unknown points on the earth's surface provides no useful information. No conclusions of any type can be drawn.

7) The rate of warming is not unusual.

There is no presumption of any warming to be considered unusual.

8) Global warming is explainable by clouds.

There is no formal/scientific specification for the buzzword "Global Warming." Hence, there is no presumption of any Global Warming that needs to be explained or that is somehow explained by clouds.

9) Natural variation within a regular interglacial climate regime is well able to account for the trivial and mild climate changes and temperature shifts that we have seen so far and we have no objective reason to think that anything unprecedented is happening to the climate at all.

Here you have a sentence that says nothing; it is based on many totally undefined terms. Just delete this one.

10) Anthropogenic CO2 should not take hundreds or thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere.

This is stupidity in its raw form.

1) You use the word "should." Are you under the impression that CO2 somehow decays? Is there some rate at which CO2 should leave the atmosphere? ... and where should it go? How should it leave?

2) Why would any rational adult believe that any CO2 is somehow on a path to leave the atmosphere except to continue in the standard cycle of being consumed by plants and thereafter being released into the atmosphere again?

I'll let you in on a little secret. CO2 is heavier than most other atmospheric molecules so it works its way downward towards the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. the surface, where it is greedily gobbled up by plants that currently receive dangerously far too little of it from the atmosphere (this is why all commercial greenhouses and nurseries pump vast quantities of CO2 into their environments for the plants to thrive instead of "removing" CO2 which would kill them outright).

Remember that most of the earth's surface is covered by ocean, the surface of which is loaded with plant life that quickly eats up that CO2 just like any other plant. As long as we have a surface covered with plants there will be no problem of CO2 somehow accumulating in our atmosphere.

11) There's a widespread misconception that the IPCC's AR4 and AR5 reports are based on an overwhelming amount of peer-review science.

This statement broadcasts that you are scientifically illiterate. There is no such thing as peer-reviewed science. None of the science that we have was ever "peer reviewed." Nobody owns science and no one's permission or "review" is needed for science to be created.

I know what you desperately want to say but no, no one's review is ever required. People who throw around the term "peer review" are scientifically illiterate morons who have no understanding that the scientific method is the test for science, not any human's opinion.

12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations.

False. No human has ever formally defined the global Climate therefore there has never been any Climate models. If there were a Climate model then one could extract the formal specification and test it, but alas this is not the case. As such, there have been no observations that refute any non-existent predictive performance by any non-existent Climate models.

I know, I know, ... you desperately want to make the grand mistake of confusing the term "model" for "computer program." You want to claim that computer programs are just randomly thrown together and are not implementations of any model.

You're not a software engineer. Ask me how I know.

13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity.

Climate is a completely undefined buzzword. That makes Climate sensitivity a completely undefined buzzword as well. The IPCC's fault is not in overstating Climate sensitivity but in not unambiguously defining it and nonetheless continuing to use it.

14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse.

This is a reason to not trust the media, not to somehow be skeptical about Global Warming.

15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth and more CO2 would enhance the growth-rate of photosynthetic organisms.

Bing-bing-bing ... we have a winner. This should be your opening point and your thesis statement. CO2 is good, it is not bad. We need more of it and it has no magical superpower to destroy the planet.

16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2.

"Solar Forcing" is undefined. As such, it is absurd to think that someone somehow measured this undefined thing ... in the past.

There is no such thing as a "forcing" in science, ergo one must assume the intended meaning is the colloquial one which means "miracle." As far as I know, there are no known units of measure for miracles nor any technology to measure miracles.

17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented,

The ocean is not rising to any discernible extent. Any rational adult can verify the ocean is not rising.

18) Compelling evidence the IPCC's models misrepresent the Earth's climate is shown in the graph below.

There is no defined global Climate for the IPCC to misrepresent. The entire concept is a pure Marxism-based fabrication.

19) Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%).

Yes, this is the tmiddles delusion that he places in the "What we know" category. It is not a reason to be skeptical of Global Warming so much as it is a preferred way for warmizombies to announce that they are scientifically illiterate losers.

Nobody knows what Venus' average temperature is. Of course there are many people like tmiddles who will tell you that the average temperature of the entire planet of Venus is "what we know" because of a thermally stressed (to the point of being destroyed) landing vehicle's handful of uncalibrated and unverified readings in one unknown local area and elevation of the bottom Venus' atmosphere.

Venus is presumably very hot due to its proximity to the sun. Any other specific claims about Venus are fabrications ... especially the ones on Wikipedia.

(note: I notice that you try dabbling in math and physics on this one. Don't. You look really silly. You also include the word "albedo" which is an immediate red flag that you aren't talking about physics and that you don't know what you are talking about. Stay away from discussions that use the word "albedo" and pay more attention to arguments based on "emissivity" [the correct term used in blackbody science])

20) The threat from methane has been overblown.

There is no methane threat for anyone to overblow.

21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life.

"Ocean Acidification!" is the cry of scientifically illiterate morons. There is so much wrong with it that it doesn't merit any effort addressing.

Ocean Acidification Debunked
Coral Bleaching Debunked

The earth's natural geological processes make the ocean alkaline, which means that we can expect the ocean to (slowly) continue to become increasingly alkaline over time. Currently the Navy Research Labs generally treats the ocean as having an 8.2 pH while recognizing that pH is simply not uniform throughout the ocean.

22) The positive effects of global warming to me outweigh the negatives.

There is no Global Warming. Zero positive effects do not somehow outweigh the equivalently zero negative effects.




Have diarrhea? Kaopectate might help. It does seem to explain your symptoms.
04-07-2021 00:32
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(139)
Wow ^^ This IBdaMann guy is a total ass. Clearly he likes belittling people.

I won't bother replying to the forum troll. Save me time and energy.


Nathan-D
Edited on 04-07-2021 00:36
04-07-2021 00:32
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(139)
Double-post


Nathan-D
Edited on 04-07-2021 00:32
04-07-2021 00:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
One Punch Man wrote:
Wow ^^ This IBdaMann guy is a total ass.
I won't bother replying to the forum troll. Save me time and energy.


Well to be fair we both have, many times. Asked and answered.
04-07-2021 00:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


tgoebbles wrote:So what about this question: What is a sane/sound approach to skepticism?

Easy: The Scientific Method.

However, let's boil down your methodology into three steps:
1- Imagine what you need to believe and then tell yourself it's "what we know."
2- Treat rational adults who ask for a rational basis to believe the crap you preach as enemies who must obviously be "hiding or manufacturing evidence to discredit your position."
3- When your "evidence" is missing or contradictory, simply refer to step 2.

tgoebbles wrote: To suggest that NASA simply falsified all the data would be the conspiracy theorists blank check to believe anything they want.

Refer to your step 2 above. You don't have any valid dataset supporting the conclusions you need to believe (re: your step 1) so you focus your thoughts on the idea that NASA really does exist and so therefore doubters must be NASA deniers and therefore they must be true conspiracy theorists.

Well done.



.
Attached image:

04-07-2021 00:45
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.


Hi James--- It's me. Sina.




04-07-2021 00:51
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.


Hi James--- It's me. Sina.




I think you live in the San Francisco Bay area while Sina lives in the Netherlands. She's German but her school is in the Netherlands.
She might say Das meich, but can't be sure
04-07-2021 01:08
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.


Hi James--- It's me. Sina.




I think you live in the San Francisco Bay area while Sina lives in the Netherlands. She's German but her school is in the Netherlands.
She might say Das meich, but can't be sure


What a coincidence. I am also educated by the Nether World. It is an uplifting experience.



Edited on 04-07-2021 01:08
04-07-2021 01:13
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.


Hi James--- It's me. Sina.




I think you live in the San Francisco Bay area while Sina lives in the Netherlands. She's German but her school is in the Netherlands.
She might say Das meich, but can't be sure


What a coincidence. I am also educated by the Nether World. It is an uplifting experience.



You're not Sina. That is just rude.
04-07-2021 01:28
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.


Hi James--- It's me. Sina.




I think you live in the San Francisco Bay area while Sina lives in the Netherlands. She's German but her school is in the Netherlands.
She might say Das meich, but can't be sure


What a coincidence. I am also educated by the Nether World. It is an uplifting experience.



You're not Sina. That is just rude.


Why can't you just get into the spirit of rearranging the letters. Is that so hard???

Anyway, today I finally figured out what those blurry black letters spell in that picture of SIna I shared.

"I'M YOU"


04-07-2021 01:35
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James babble is to say one thing and mean another.

Now, to answer your question, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.



Are we getting into Greek or Roman Gods? Mars is the God of war while Venus is the Goddess of Love. This suggests that men are aggressive while women are passionate (hot blooded).
What let's us know the difference? They both say the same things but their emotional state is different. A woman who is passionate isn't feeling threatened or is defending her territory. Does defending or caring for one's family equate to defending one's territory? I think that's the basic argument.
In that spirit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw
Enjoy


p.s., that group of individuals represents the US (Rick Benbow on keyboards), Andrei Cerbu (e Romania, in English, he's Romanian) and Germans.


Hi James--- It's me. Sina.




I think you live in the San Francisco Bay area while Sina lives in the Netherlands. She's German but her school is in the Netherlands.
She might say Das meich, but can't be sure


What a coincidence. I am also educated by the Nether World. It is an uplifting experience.



You're not Sina. That is just rude.


Why can't you just get into the spirit of rearranging the letters. Is that so hard???

Anyway, today I finally figured out what those blurry black letters spell in that picture of SIna I shared.

"I'M YOU"



We're not the same. As for Sina, she will drum on. That you went there, I'm on her side.
04-07-2021 01:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


Wow ^^ This One Punch Man guy is a total moron who thinks he's a fuúquing genius. Clearly he thinks he's too good to learn from people who know SO much more than he does.

I won't bother replying directly to the troll. Save me time and energy.

04-07-2021 01:59
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
IBdaMann wrote:


Wow ^^ This One Punch Man guy is a total moron who thinks he's a fuúquing genius. Clearly he thinks he's too good to learn from people who know SO much more than he does.

I won't bother replying directly to the troll. Save me time and energy.




It is not nice to play games with Sina. I am a fan of hers.
04-07-2021 02:01
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below is an article I wrote last year putting together 22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/

Quote from the article:

This post lists 22 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) which claims human CO2-emissions are dangerously heating up the Earth's atmosphere, requiring urgent mitigating measures to counteract. It's my opinion that anthropogenic global warming is minuscule at only 0.0018°C per 1ppmv of CO2 and the punitive green-taxes, carbon offset programs and disruptive geoengineering projects are all unnecessary and a waste of time and resources.

1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect. The measured radiative forcing at the surface from CO2 from 2000-2010 was 0.2 W/m2 from a 22ppmv increase (Feldman et al 2015) which works out at about 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv. However, because of the logarithmic nature of CO2's radiative forcing, regular 1ppmv increments of CO2 would produce ever diminishing increments of radiative forcing and so 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv would be a generous linear relationship to use as of 2020. According to the Keeling Curve, CO2 is increasing at the rate of around 2.5ppmv/year. Therefore, the annual radiative forcing from CO2 would be about 0.025 W/m2 and that would be sufficient to raise the global temperature at the surface by about 0.0046°C under the S-B law*1 (assuming none gets absorbed in the evaporation of seawater). Far from being catastrophic, such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in the inaccuracies of the measurements.



2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour. The planet's average surface temperature is currently about 15°C while its blackbody temperature is -18°C and the temperature difference of about 33°C represents a large amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse. In fact it amounts to about 153 W/m2. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is on average 1% (source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet) while the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%. Hence water vapour is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, and pound for pound, it also has a far greater potency than CO2 as well because it absorbs IR-energy over a much greater spectrum. CO2 comprises approximately 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse by volume and since it is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour it follows logically that it cannot be contributing more than 6 W/m2 (4%) to the greenhouse effect of 153 W/m2 whereas water vapour should contribute upwards of 146 W/m2 (96%).

❝Water vapour is by far and away the most important greenhouse gas... even if all other greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98% of the current greenhouse effect❞ -- Richard Lindzen



3) The 13C/12C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere. The atmospheric life-time for CO2 has been confirmed empirically, by observations of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio. Around 99% of atmospheric CO2 consists of the 12C isotope with the remaining 1% consisting of 13C. The 13C/12C ratio is commonly referred to as δ13C. δ13C is the difference between the ratio of 13C/12C in a substance compared to a standard of Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite minus one. The number is multiplied by one-thousand and expressed as "per mil" (parts per thousand). Anthropogenic CO2 has an approximate δ13C of around –29 (with values ranging between -20 to -44) and natural biogenic CO2 is similar with a δ13C of -26. The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ13C of around -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans. The CO2 in the atmosphere has a δ13C of about –8.3. So, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is 6%*2 (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7) with the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. 94%) being isotopically-indistinguishable*3 from natural sources.



And yet your finger is up your nose. Just too sad to take seriously.
04-07-2021 02:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)
James___ wrote:And yet your finger is up your nose. Just too sad to take seriously.


When you shout "Stick your finger up your nose!" ... I ask "How far, sir?"

.
Attached image:

04-07-2021 02:50
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:And yet your finger is up your nose. Just too sad to take seriously.


When you shout "Stick your finger up your nose!" ... I ask "How far, sir?"

.




I didn't shout. Yet you stuck your finger up your butt anyways. Just sad.


p.s., I get it. You like the way it smells.

Edited on 04-07-2021 02:52
04-07-2021 03:31
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
Good work One Punch Man.This is exactly where I am at after nearly 2 years of study and real world experiance.I love IBDM and wish to bear his child
04-07-2021 04:06
James___
★★★★★
(5340)
duncan61 wrote:
Good work One Punch Man.This is exactly where I am at after nearly 2 years of study and real world experiance.I love IBDM and wish to bear his child



You want to stick your finger up your nose? Best of luck to you guys.
04-07-2021 04:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


James___ wrote:I didn't shout.

I heard you all the way over here.

James___ wrote:Yet you stuck your finger up your butt anyways.

Nope. Directly to the nose and deep.



James___ wrote:p.s., I get it. You like the way it smells.

I do like how my nose smells. It's almost as if it's made for it.

04-07-2021 13:04
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(139)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wow ^^ This One Punch Man guy is a total moron who thinks he's a fuúquing genius. Clearly he thinks he's too good to learn from people who know SO much more than he does.

I have seen your replies on this board for a while, and the viciousness of people like you is really striking. You are aggressive, judgemental, accusatory and always either on the attack or probing for weaknesses in the other people's views so that you can attack them. Attacking people with insults seems to be a kind of sport in which you indulge purely for ego-recreation. Evidently you actually enjoy demoralizing and humiliating others if you possibly can.

You are utterly deluded and are utterly convinced of your own rightness.


Nathan-D
Edited on 04-07-2021 13:17
04-07-2021 19:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


One Punch Man wrote:I have seen your replies on this board for a while,

I'm glad that you specified that you have merely "seen" my replies and didn't try to imply that you were somehow able to read them for comprehension.

One Punch Man wrote: ...and the viciousness of people like you is really striking.

Yes, I can easily understand how a total moron such as yourself would find correction via science and math as a "vicious attack."

You know nothing. You have nothing of any intellectual value to contribute. You believe that you are too good to learn from others. Your article is a testament to how you are only capable of regurgitating what other morons tell you to believe. You cannot think for yourself and are relegated to simply absorbing the mistaken opinions of others as though it were the gospel truth. If someone such as myself tries to help you with science, you consider it a vicious attack. It must totally suck to be you.

So there you are, wallowing in the misery of your life, overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy, so you make your occasional appearance in Climate-Debate as a chronic troll trying to elicit signals that reaffirm your relevance in intellectual matters. Of course you can't simply respond intelligently to existing posts because that is beyond your abilities. Instead, you write an "article" that merely regurgitates what you believe are the correct opinions of other morons to whose level you aspire to reach, and then you come to this forum and say "Everybody look at me! Look what I did!" with the expectation that you be lauded for your brilliance. Of course, when your article is given a thorough scrubbing, it is more than you can handle. My unabridged review did not meet your expectations. It did not give you your delusion "fix" to help you overcome your feelings of inadequacy. Of course you found it to be "vicious." Of course you found it be "demoralizing." For you, it's not about learning (i.e. the purpose of this type of forum of ideas) but rather about having others stroke your ego, whether or not you deserve it.

You are a moron.

If you are too good to learn then the only other option is for you to be mocked. Get ready to bend over ... or else look to be coddled elsewhere.

I'm going to have fun with you. You don't know anything but you think you are some kind of guru. I'm looking forward to more of your "commentary."

One Punch Man wrote: You are [...] utterly convinced of your own rightness.

Being right does that to me, just as not knowing anything blinds you to people trying to help you.

04-07-2021 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


One Punch Man wrote:Jupiter has a core temperature of 24,000K (18,800,000,000 W/m2) even though solar isolation is only 50 W/m2 and meanwhile Uranus has a tropospheric base that is radiating at 600 W/m2 (around 320K) despite it receiving only 3.7 W/m2 from the Sun.


This is a great example.

1. Why should any rational adult believe that you know what Jupiter's core temperature is? Can you explain without pointing to the merely subjective speculation of others that you are simply regurgitating?

2. Why do you believe that your random value of 18,800,000,000 W/m2 has any relationship of merit to the power of the solar energy received by the earth? Why did you even mention it?

3. Were you planning on defining this "troposphere" that Uranus supposedly has? Why should any rational adult believe that you are somehow an expert on Uranus' atmosphere?

4. Why should anyone believe that you know the temperature and radiance of the bottom of Uranus' atmosphere ... or that you even know where that is?

I know, I know, ... I'm not stroking your ego and I'm not recognizing you for being a total genius ... and I'm sure this is totally "vicious" in your mind.

You are a moron who takes immense pride in being stupid. I feel sorry for you.

04-07-2021 20:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


One Punch Man wrote:The way that money is created in society today is that it's issued by private corporate central banks as loans to governments and the public. This money is only loaned to governments (and public) which means they're eventually required to pay it back. All money is now issued to society by private corporate banks. It's issued as loans.

This is another great example.

When the Federal government directly pays a defense contractor with money that is simply "printed" (created out of nothing) for that purpose, what bank is involved in that?

Are you going to replace keepit as the board's repository for economic misunderstanding?

If so, welcome aboard.

04-07-2021 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10380)


One Punch Man wrote:Unbeknownst to the vast majority of folk, cancer can already be cured naturally and this has probably been known for many decades, but these cures have been suppressed by the medical establishment which is largely politically-controlled by drug companies.

This is another great example.

So all of the doctors over the decades, who never worked for drug companies but who conducted independent cancer research, all humbly abandoned all desire for the recognition and financial incentives that come with the Nobel Prize just to help drug companies keep cancer cures buried?

I see. I would not have guessed this but you are the expert on the matter. If you say the cure for cancer has been around for decades and that no drug company decided to patent it and make a killing ... then that must certainly be the case.

One Punch Man wrote:After reading many books on cancer, I find the trophoblastic thesis the most compelling (as shown here) which was propounded by John Beard way back in 1902.

I notice that, when considering the whole of your extensive medical background, that what you find "most compelling" is some of the earliest research findings from 1902 and not any of the latest breakthroughs coming out of the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins or St. Jude.

How very shrewd of you, and how so very orthodox. Clearly we need you running the show if we want to start saving lives.

05-07-2021 06:09
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
One Punch Man wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wow ^^ This One Punch Man guy is a total moron who thinks he's a fuúquing genius. Clearly he thinks he's too good to learn from people who know SO much more than he does.

I have seen your replies on this board for a while, and the viciousness of people like you is really striking. You are aggressive, judgemental, accusatory and always either on the attack or probing for weaknesses in the other people's views so that you can attack them. Attacking people with insults seems to be a kind of sport in which you indulge purely for ego-recreation. Evidently you actually enjoy demoralizing and humiliating others if you possibly can.

You are utterly deluded and are utterly convinced of your own rightness.

IBDM is an aquired taste.I am liking your work


duncan61
06-07-2021 17:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below is an article I wrote last year putting together 22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/

Quote from the article:

This post lists 22 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) which claims human CO2-emissions are dangerously heating up the Earth's atmosphere, requiring urgent mitigating measures to counteract. It's my opinion that anthropogenic global warming is minuscule at only 0.0018°C per 1ppmv of CO2 and the punitive green-taxes, carbon offset programs and disruptive geoengineering projects are all unnecessary and a waste of time and resources.

1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect.

None. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
One Punch Man wrote:
The measured radiative forcing at the surface

No such thing. No gas or vapor is a force of any kind. Buzzword fallacy.
One Punch Man wrote:
from CO2 from 2000-2010 was 0.2 W/m2 from a 22ppmv increase (Feldman et al 2015) which works out at about 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv. However, because of the logarithmic nature of CO2's radiative forcing, regular 1ppmv increments of CO2 would produce ever diminishing increments of radiative forcing and so 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv would be a generous linear relationship to use as of 2020. According to the Keeling Curve, CO2 is increasing at the rate of around 2.5ppmv/year. Therefore, the annual radiative forcing from CO2 would be about 0.025 W/m2 and that would be sufficient to raise the global temperature at the surface by about 0.0046°C under the S-B law*1 (assuming none gets absorbed in the evaporation of seawater). Far from being catastrophic, such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in the inaccuracies of the measurements.

There is no precision to a bunch of random numbers. Making up numbers is nothing more than random numbers.
One Punch Man wrote:
2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour.

No gas or vapor has the ability to warm the Earth at all. None. Zero. Nada. Nan. Zip. You can't create energy out of nothing.
One Punch Man wrote:
The planet's average surface temperature is currently about 15°C while its blackbody temperature is -18°C

The temperature of Earth is unknown. The black body temperature of Earth is the same as the temperature of the Earth.
One Punch Man wrote:
and the temperature difference of about 33°C represents a large amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse.

No gas or vapor is a force of any kind. There is no such thing as 'radiative forcing'.
One Punch Man wrote:
In fact it amounts to about 153 W/m2. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere

Another random number. You are making shit up again.
One Punch Man wrote:
is on average 1% (source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet) while the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%. Hence water vapour is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, and pound for pound, it also has a far greater potency than CO2 as well because it absorbs IR-energy over a much greater spectrum. CO2 comprises approximately 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse by volume and since it is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour it follows logically that it cannot be contributing more than 6 W/m2 (4%) to the greenhouse effect of 153 W/m2 whereas water vapour should contribute upwards of 146 W/m2 (96%).

Quoting NASA's made up numbers is not better. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of water vapor. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans.

No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth by even a single degree. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring.

No gas or vapor has the capability to reduce entropy. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for a frequency. You are ignoring this law as well.
One Punch Man wrote:
❝Water vapour is by far and away the most important greenhouse gas... even if all other greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98% of the current greenhouse effect❞ -- Richard Lindzen

I don't care who quotes it. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't make energy out of nothing.

One Punch Man wrote:
3) The 13C/12C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere. The atmospheric life-time for CO2 has been confirmed empirically, by observations of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio. Around 99% of atmospheric CO2 consists of the 12C isotope with the remaining 1% consisting of 13C. The 13C/12C ratio is commonly referred to as δ13C. δ13C is the difference between the ratio of 13C/12C in a substance compared to a standard of Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite minus one. The number is multiplied by one-thousand and expressed as "per mil" (parts per thousand). Anthropogenic CO2 has an approximate δ13C of around –29 (with values ranging between -20 to -44) and natural biogenic CO2 is similar with a δ13C of -26. The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ13C of around -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans. The CO2 in the atmosphere has a δ13C of about –8.3. So, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is 6%*2 (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7) with the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. 94%) being isotopically-indistinguishable*3 from natural sources.

There is no 'lifetime' of any gas or vapor. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of either CO2 nor water vapor. You are making shit up and quoting NASA's made up shit.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
06-07-2021 17:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
One Punch Man wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:...22 points as to why we should be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming....

Good stuff One Punch! Here was the last discussion

Thanks. I have noticed that the more established members on this board seem to be very against the greenhouse gas theory and so probably won't respond well to this post because it assumes that CO2 and water vapour are having a real small warming. But the article also concludes that the warming we have experienced in recent times can be explained by changes in cloud-cover and also touches upon other points independent of the warming effect of CO2.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas theory'. You can't have a theory about what you can't define. Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
06-07-2021 17:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.

Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords are no threat.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
06-07-2021 17:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.



This is only if we can't reduce ODSs and run out of sources of CO2. Hydrocarbons and ODSs really do need to be reduced. Basically, if the ozone layer becomes depleted enough, we won't be able to grow crops and phytoplankton (fish love the stuff, think food chain) will probably die off among other things. We do have time and how we use it is up to us.

p.s., @All, my primary concern would be what threat does industrialization pose to the ozone layer? About everything else we do, we can survive/adapt or adjust to. The ozone layer supports us having food to eat.

It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer, even if we wanted to. As long as there is oxygen and sunshine, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 06-07-2021 17:45
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Come'on man...321-08-2021 23:54
Reasons Why Promoting Using NCOV COVID Vaccine Is Going Against The Unseen Divine Law This Timeline025-07-2021 16:03
The Corona Virus NCOV COVID Made By Super Deities, Religion Gods Like For Few Reasons518-06-2021 17:27
The Reasons You Must Stay Away From All The Corrupt Governments Groups & Use Your Own Mindset007-06-2021 13:16
Climate Change Made Corona Virus COVID Because People Understand Wrong About Environment System116-03-2021 18:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact