The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist

IBdaMann wrote:...no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) ...

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 22...16b...35b1...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) ...

OK IBD, what's not pure speculation?

Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?

Harry C wrote:

Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?

The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) ...

OK IBD, what's not pure speculation?

Stupid question. We have been over this.

Harry C wrote:
The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?

Harry C wrote:

Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?

The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...paradoxes a...r...29...20c...10 (science<->answers)...16b...

James___ wrote:
Why is the northern Pacific Ocean having above average temperature warm blobs (2) since 2013 that can last a couple of years or more and if not caused by CO2, then why are they happening?

keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

However in the North during the ice age climate was also subjected to fast climate oscillations, i.e. a flip-flop from cold to very cold conditions. This flip-flop or bipolar see saw continued to occur during the slow and gradual warming from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago.

keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

James_ wrote:

keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

The IPCC has been pulling a fast one with this. They used to say CO2;
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

While the documentary was not sponsored by the IPCC, it does seem that the IPCC
let that documentary determine the science behind climate change. There is a large number of scientists who does not support the IPCC saying CO2 and today the IPCC will not say CO2 is causing climate change.
And today many organizations will still say CO2 because that's what the IPCC gave them as a cause for climate change.

This is an example of what I mean. https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/

That opinion of his has been heavily censored. When he says

However in the North during the ice age climate was also subjected to fast climate oscillations, i.e. a flip-flop from cold to very cold conditions. This flip-flop or bipolar see saw continued to occur during the slow and gradual warming from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago.

That is all he is allowed to say. Do you support a 2 State solution? Some things are not allowed to be spoken.

p.s., If my research proves out, his opinion changing will become known. And who forced him to change his opinion, I will hunt those people down and cost them their jobs. A lot of my research has been based on what has been made known.
His opinion was my Rosetta Stone for understanding how my research applies to understanding climate change. That makes his original opinion an important historical artifact, an important contribution to science if you will.

p.s.s., My research if successful will explain the flip-flops that he describes. This
information is found online. What made his opinion special was the contexts and examples that he used.

keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

keepit wrote:Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

Why should any rational adult worship your WACKY Global Warming religion?

sealover wrote: Especially after this past year of extreme weather,

sealover wrote: the 97% figure is an underestimate.

sealover wrote: There is no doubt among credible scientists.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

Why should any rational adult worship your WACKY Global Warming religion?

Especially after this past year of extreme weather, the 97% figure is an underestimate.

There is no doubt among credible scientists.

Unambiguous definition of "rational adult".

A "rational adult" is a scientifically illiterate Internet troll who never passed a single college level course in ANY field of science. Doesn't even know what science is. Literally!

RenaissanceMan wrote:
The most esteemed scientist in the world in 1895 was Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific organization in the world. That year, he claimed "Heavier than air human flight is impossible."