Remember me
▼ Content

Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?



Page 2 of 2<12
28-02-2017 20:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

You've shown nothing at all. You seem to be totally incapable of understanding scientific papers and are just repeating the same old lies and long debunked claims over and over.

Can you cite one, just one, paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that supports you claims that AGW is not a real effect?


I have no intentions of going over the evidence yet again. I think that at least 100 times is enough whether you do or not. GasGuzzler just totally destroyed your prior claim that when CO2 was stable so was the MGT. With your latest you are not in the litesong club and no longer worthy of even reading.
28-02-2017 20:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.


Well yea, If your whole argument depends on bold claims your opponent knows are false. In a debate you can't really expect your opponent to just drop the issue.

How exactly do you know the medieval warm period was warmer then now?


And from you we get that _I_ am making bold claims while you have given us "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" while you have consistently denied any proof that your claims are false.

Making a fool of yourself doesn't exactly improve your position.
28-02-2017 20:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.


There is an almost complete identification with the ingroup(Watson, 1974)..... Socialization further reinforces out-group hostility as it is often rewarded within the in-group(Watson, 1974). In this group emotions spread quickly, as if contagious. The ingroup membership brings with it a feeling of superiority and security. A common goal focuses all of this energy, hence the irrationality and often aggression of such groups(McDougall, 1920).

Diane Kohl, examination of Nazis


Since I brought your name into this I will answer you this once:
What you have suggested is that anyone that opposes your position is a Nazi.

Don' worra...... Altho you're late, you're in the ingroup..... & wherever you can pilot the ingroup.
Edited on 28-02-2017 20:21
28-02-2017 20:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.


Well yea, If your whole argument depends on bold claims your opponent knows are false. In a debate you can't really expect your opponent to just drop the issue.

How exactly do you know the medieval warm period was warmer then now?


And from you we get that _I_ am making bold claims while you have given us "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" while you have consistently denied any proof that your claims are false.

Making a fool of yourself doesn't exactly improve your position.


I never bought that statistic up. Surface detail made the claim and whether you agree or not he provided evidence and an argument to support it. Something you have failed to do in support of your argument that the Medieval warm period is warmer then now.

You seem frustrated that I am not blindly taking your word for it. What are you trying to achieve here?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 20:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

You've shown nothing at all. You seem to be totally incapable of understanding scientific papers and are just repeating the same old lies and long debunked claims over and over.

Can you cite one, just one, paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that supports you claims that AGW is not a real effect?


I have no intentions of going over the evidence yet again. I think that at least 100 times is enough whether you do or not. GasGuzzler just totally destroyed your prior claim that when CO2 was stable so was the MGT. With your latest you are not in the litesong club and no longer worthy of even reading.

He did nothing of the sort. Look at the scales. The graph shows the period of about 10,000 years starting just after the start of the current interglacial up until just before the start of industrialisation. During this period, both CO2 and MGT temperature remained almost stable, with CO2 varying by no more than 20 ppm and temperature by no more than a degree. When CO2 is almost stable, then we notice other effects.

In summary, if you're looking at the effect of CO2 on temperature, it makes no sense to focus on a period when CO2 remains almost unchanged!

Edit: You have never actually given any evidence to support your claims. Simply writing posts IN BOLD TYPE is not evidence!
Edited on 28-02-2017 20:38
28-02-2017 22:56
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You have never actually given any evidence to support your claims. Simply writing posts IN BOLD TYPE is not evidence!

But its BOLD TYPE, does mean it BELIEVES ITS LIES STRONGLY.... or it tries to make us believe it believes its lies.
Edited on 28-02-2017 22:58
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming13325-05-2020 11:26
where all the co2 at120-05-2020 14:13
The Prevention of Climate Change Through CO2 Removal2328-03-2020 22:32
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)23024-02-2020 23:13
▲ 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