Global Warming is a Scam

I guess anybody that disagrees with you is deemed a denier? That quote is from the IAC. The IAC is a group created by the World's Science Academies to provide advice to world governing bodies. So, the worlds science academies create an organization that is full of deniers in your opinion? Who exactly are you calling the scientific consensus? What is the method for determining which scientists can form a consensus?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Can you prove that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1950 is responsible for the increase in temperature since that time? You cannot do it. This is why me and many others are not convinced of manmade global warming. Yes, glaciers and the artic ice cap is melting if you compare it to 60 years ago. Does that mean CO2 did it? You cannot prove it. That is what is being "denied" here. BTW, "denier" is a hateful term to describe someone that is not convinced by religious propaganda. Yes, it is very religious in nature the way you guys are so enamored with the idea. You know good and well you are trying to equate manmade global warming deniers with holocaust deniers. Try to debunk any of the points made in the american thinker article instead of going off on rabbit trails like arctic melting and calling people hateful names like denier.

Yup the same way i cannot prove the theory of gravity, germ theory or any other theory.But let me try to explain to you how the heating of the earth works.The sun shines its light upon the earth Now all this light gets absorbed by the earth and it heats it up, but the earth is rotating and soon it is night so the earth starts loosing heat. This is the wavelength fare in to the infra read the earth emits.Now greenhouse gasses absorb light at different wavelengths CO2 absorbs light at about 4 microns. Only a tiny fraction of the light coming from the sun is at 4 microns so almost all of it gets trough our atmosphere and heats up the earth. But almost 1% of the light emitted by the earth in to space to cool it can get absorbed by CO2.And as CO2 absorbs it it irradiates the light back to the earth to warm it up again. Now we have been steadily increasing our output of CO2 in to the atmosphere thus basicly coating our atmosphere with a 2 way mirror letting all the light in but not allowing all of it out.

As frako demonstrates above, we can prove that increasing atmopsheric CO2 concentrations will trap more heat in the atmosphere. What do you think will happen when we trap more heat in the atmosphere? Do think global temps will go down, go up, or remain the same?

The sun has been going through a cooling trend since 1960, yet temperatures still rise, why is that if it is not due to greenhouse gases?

quote:

---

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

​

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

---

Source

No, foreveryoung. The cited paragraph was commentary not written by IAC. I don't know who wrote it, but you'll notice that the various sources reporting it don't claim it to be a quote. It's commentary attached to a summary of the IAC report, and only some of the words in the summary are actually presented as quotes.ABE:The words appear to be written by Mr. Blast of the Heartland Institute. All of the sources that I can find for the words link to the American Thinkers article.But that said, I suppose you did catch me failing to keep my promise not to comment on your sources. I'd be happy to document my reasons for questioning the, objectivity of American Thinkers and the Heartland Institute. You are doubtless aware that Heartland Institute's pedigree includes working with cigarette companies to question second hand smoke research.Here is an example of some more of the Heartland Institute's climate change work."Extremist US thinktank compared those who believe in man-made climate change to serial killer Ted Kaczynski"

quote:

---

But about two dozen insurance companies, including US giant State Farm, announced an end to support for Heartland because of the billboard. The ad, which ran for just a day on a Chicago expressway, featured an image of the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and the caption: "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"

---

Big donors ditch rightwing Heartland Institute over Unabomber billboard | Climate science scepticism and denial | The GuardianAnd one way to find what the consensus is on global warming is to look at the reports and papers of the actual scientists rather than at a report that simply attempts to summarize other people's reports. We can ignore Al Gore and the Heartland Institute. Why don't you tell me what the scientific consensus is? Edited by NoNukes, : Clarify that I don't know the source.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"Thou dost protest to much me thinks."

We can prove that there is an increase, and we can prove that the increase is due entirely to anthropogenic use of fossil fuels. Arrhenius proved in the 1800's that CO2 in the atmosphere does cause the "greenhouse effect", and that this effect is concentration-dependent.So, yes, I would say it's proven. Deniers such as yourself are never able to explain how you could increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, without causing an increase in global temperatures.

And that is a great example of your utter lunacy and asininity.Do you not understand that the very best case scenario is if global warming is 100% man made?It's yet another example of the Christian Rights total inability to think beyond a 15 second sound-bite.The issue is that change is happening.The only things that are in our control are those man made contributing behaviors. If global warming is NOT mostly man made then we are really in deep shit.

Not being convinced is merely a state of ignorance. Only a few pitiful fools actually push the idea that the increase in carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming. Some people try to argue that the bulk of global warming is not main made, but the link between carbon dioxide and global warming is pure physics.But ignorance is not true denial. Denial is what the Heartland Institute does. I agree that calling someone a denier is a hateful term. It equates the denier with people who dont' just doubt but actually discourage an understanding that smoking causes cancer, that HIV causes aids etc. And in the case of Heartland Institute, the lable is more than justified. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

From the graph in Message 40 it looks like the spike in CO2 levels is almost routine. Every hundred thousand yrs or so.

Well, we know that the energy from the sun hasn't increased, because we can measure that using satellites outside the atmosphere. This means that by definition the increase in temperatures is because of a greenhouse effect --- no more energy is coming in, but more is being trapped as heat.We know that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, that's just physics, it's been known for well over a century.And we know that CO₂ levels are rising, that's a matter of direct measurement.So we know we have a greenhouse effect, and we know that something is happening which must cause a greenhouse effect.So in what sense can't we prove it? Yes we can. It's all fairly basic. It's like someone constantly stuffing himself with burgers and donuts and getting fatter and fatter --- the causal relationship is well understood. We know he's getting fatter, and we know he's consuming a lot of calories. How would we conjecture that the latter is not the cause of the former? Are we to suppose that a Stomach Fairy is magically removing the food from his stomach, preventing it from fattening him, while an Obesity Fairy is cursing him with weight gain, making him fatter?Well, the same applies to CO₂ and global warming. To deny the connection, we have to suppose that:(1) Some entirely unknown process is preventing CO₂ from acting as a greenhouse gas, something which physicists tell us is a physical inevitability, and(2) A second entirely unknown process is causing the planet to undergo a greenhouse effect. I'm also very enamored of the idea that two plus two is four. It takes more than amorous feelings to make a religion.

We can radiocarbon date CO2, which proves that the increase in CO2 is due to carbon which was until recently trapped as fossil fuels. So we know that the increase is due to fossil fuels.

Are you sure about this? I thought that petroleum and coal were notoriously hard to carbon date.

My point is that the co2 levels were rising consistently for the last 15k yrs
or so without our help.