Actually I have not,...but who cares about the truth,...right,...frankie,...???
FAST
Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
- Status
FAST
Sorry, I forgot, you don't even read the denier sites.
Nothing but uninformed opinion served up with extraneous punctuation from you, right NOTSOFAST?
In fact AGW is confirmed. There's no doubt that human activity creates greenhouse gases, which warm they planet to the exact degree predicted.Not according to the recently published paper in Nature.
What is less understood, and more interesting to discuss, is what other factors besides AGW are influencing temperature, and how much warming will occur in total.
Yes it is! It is amazing that after all the time and energy you have put into your climate religion, that you didn't even know the internationally accepted scientific definition of climate was a thirty year average of weather.
I posted that in one context only: refuting the climate denier video above in whic the kooky denier, speaking in I believe 2010, predicted cooling. Instead we have seen warming, so he was wrong.
I agree that we should be looking only at climate, meaning, nothing finer grained than 30 year rolling averages. That will show us whether the climate is changing, by the definition of climate.
Guess what it shows?
No one questioned that human activity causes greenhouse gases. That's not confirmation of AGW.
The bulk of the warming in the AGW hypothesis isn't due solely to CO2. Your study doesn't confirm AGW.
I still haven't seen an answer to my question.
Fuji: Does water vapour feedback lead to warming or cooling?
You're claiming your some big expert on the science behind the AGW hypothesis. This is an easy one. Answer the question.
No, that was done with the study that confirms that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet.
Now you're just niggling about with details that have been confirmed through other studies as you continue your troll tactic of moving the goalposts.
Let's discuss it after you acknowledge the facts so far:
1.AGW is proven to warm the planet by .2 watts per square meter per decade
2. The temperature of the planet is increasing
I see no reason to let you change the topic to avoid defeat.
I'm not changing the topic.
You said the AGW hypothesis has been "confirmed." That implies that you actually know what the AGW hypothesis is.
I don't think you do. But let's test the matter to find out.
I repeat the question: Does water vapour feedback lead to warming or cooling?
Troll tactics.
You have admitted that CO2 is the primary driver of AGW and that this study confirms the theories on CO2 as the primary driver of AGW.
That confirms AGW as real, not just a theory.
Sorry I'm not playing your game. We both know that you are perpetrating a fraud. You're trying to argue anything rather than admit the facts. I'm going to keep nailing you to the headline news :
1.AGW has been experimentally verified.
2. Temperatures are rising
You can go argue nonsense with Frank. Those two headline facts aren't debatable.
Once you acknowledge the above we can move on to the secondary debate of how much warming, whether they're are other factors, etc.
But it's indisputable that AGW contributes .2 watts per square meter is additional heat.
And yes, runaway greenhouse processes are a real thing. Hard part try explain is what STOPS the greenhouse process and why it doesn't just continue accelerating until the oceans boil off as happened on Venus. There's a historical record of accelerating greenhouse processes on earth, it's happened a few times before but in each case eventually reverted and WHY it didn't just keep warming is the more interesting question.
Last edited:
The indisputable fact is that you don't know what the AGW hypothesis is.
That's why you won't answer my question. You know damn well that what you posted on May 11 in another thread was completely wrong.
You don't know what you're talking about. That's an established fact, not an opinion.
If you had any self-respect and any interest in having people believe you're capable of intelligent thought, you would stop posting the bullshit about the AGW hypothesis being "verified." That is total hogwash.
But my guess is you'll keep posting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
And again:
http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory
Confirming CO2 as the driver of AGW confirms the theory as fact.
Done.
You are asking your question as pettifoggery to avoid admitting the established facts:
1. AGW is experimentally confirmed, and
2. There planet is getting warmer
Your goal now is to create the illusion of debate by arguing secondary points when the debate has already been won.
Nobody has proven that humans are the only contributor to the increase in CO2,...and has NOT been expressed it in % of the total.
Even IF 4000 scientists fly to Paris to "prove" that CO2 is the "driver" of the imagined increase in global temps., does NOT prove that humans are the sole cause, or even what %.
But if you leave out burning forests and continuous volcanic emissions, is guess it would be relatively easy for the 4000 unemployable "scientists" to come up with a "theory".
Until then,...AGW is Bull Shit.
Done.
FAST
Nonsense. I have repeatedly told you that the debate isn't about the "driver."
I know you're a slow learner, but this is ridiculous.
- Status
