Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

[FAST]

Wrong fuji! You're the one who lost the debate.
You asked me to post one scientist who's skeptical about global warming, and I posted three of them!
Then you moved the goalposts again (like you always do) and wanted a scientist who had written studies in journals (which I posted examples of). Then you shut up for a while, and now suddenly you're claiming victory.

Here are my examples again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

Patrick Michaels:


You lose again, fuji. You just cant admit, but its plain for everyone to see

Plus Dr Timothy Ball,... who blew up the hockey shtick graph of lies that appeared in the discredited nature magazine.

 

[basketcase]

Its not science when the sky is falling crowd is constantly "becoming more accurate",... in a direction that always makes their current theories look correct,...that's NOT science.




That is not what they have "made more accurate",... they revised how the sun was effecting the planets temperature,... and obviously,... not to increase the temperature,...who would have guessed.

And more of your conspiracy theories.


And no, they did not revise the impact of solar cycles. They've known they are cycles for a long time.

 

[basketcase]

Come on now, 1 billion extra people on earth has to obviously raise CO2 levels by quite a bit since many of them will drive cars, take airplane rides, buy products from factories that produce CO2's, use electricity from coal plants....etc....etc.

Good. You admit it is the consumerism and burning of fossil fuels that is the problem. I believe "check mate" is appropriate.

I never said earth wasnt warming, pay attention to what I say if you're gonna debate me.
I said the following:

1. Earth isnt warming up nearly as fast as the experts predicted.
2. The warming is very minor considering we have 7 billion people on earth now.
3. We dont know for sure if the slight warming of the planet is part of a natural cycle, if its manmade, or a bit of both.

1 and 2 you can make an argument for but only because out of the great many scientists working on this there are always a few fringe doom-sayers and you can define 'minor' in a variety of ways. 3 is contradicted by the vast majority of the scientific community though.

It is completely undeniable for anyone interested in science that CO2 is a major player in climactic change and as I've said repeatedly, the only one we can have any impact on without undiscovered technology and massive investment. It is also undeniable that society and ecology don't handle significant change very well. I've posted both of these facts before and nothing in your posting has done anything to deny them.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Good. You admit it is the consumerism and burning of fossil fuels that is the problem. I believe "check mate" is appropriate

I never disputed that CO2's cause greenhouse gases. I've only said the amount of global warming they cause is miniscule, and for the next 100 to 200 years we probably dont have anything to worry about.

Sorry, no check-mate.

However you are no longer denying that a 1 billion population increase ought to have had a significant increase in warming, which it didnt. It was a very minor amount of warming, and well below the projected climate predictions

1 and 2 you can make an argument for

Good, I'm glad you're finally starting to see the light

 

[FAST]

And more of your conspiracy theories.


And no, they did not revise the impact of solar cycles. They've known they are cycles for a long time.

Didn't say they didn't know there was solar cycles,... old news.

What I did say was they revised the impact of the solar cycles on the planets temperature,... that better suit their current theories.

Just another example of the sky is falling brigades continually "revising" decades of data,... this is common knowledge,... which they readily admit to.

 

[fuji]

Wrong fuji! You're the one who lost the debate.
You asked me to post one scientist who's skeptical about global warming, and I posted three of them!
Then you moved the goalposts again (like you always do) and wanted a scientist who had written studies in journals (which I posted examples of). Then you shut up for a while, and now suddenly you're claiming victory.

Here are my examples again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

Patrick Michaels:


You lose again, fuji. You just cant admit, but its plain for everyone to see

Show me the article in Nature that backs up your claim.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Show me the article in Nature that backs up your claim

Yeah, nice try fuji

 

[fuji]

Yeah, nice try fuji

Expecting you to have references? What was I thinking!

You can't provide one because there isn't one. There is no study published in a credible journal that disputes that CO2 causes global warming.

That's why you are linking to everything BUT a study in a credible journal. You're trying to distract from the fact that you've got nothing.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Expecting you to have references? What was I thinking!

Nah, you asked for one scientist who's skeptical of global warming, and I provided you with three!!

Now suddenly you want something from Nature magazine, which just proves you're trying to move the goalposts again (like a typical debate loser would do).

Nice try though, honeybun

 

[basketcase]

I never disputed that CO2's cause greenhouse gases. I've only said the amount of global warming they cause is miniscule, and for the next 100 to 200 years we probably dont have anything to worry about.
...

Which the vast majority of scientists who actually study the data disagree with.

 

[basketcase]

Didn't say they didn't know there was solar cycles,... old news.

What I did say was they revised the impact of the solar cycles on the planets temperature,... that better suit their current theories.

Just another example of the sky is falling brigades continually "revising" decades of data,... this is common knowledge,... which they readily admit to.

Solar cycles are cycles. They do not lead to an overall warming trend.

A small part of the scientific community felt that solar cycles were to blame for the warming trend and the data available now shows they are wrong.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Which the vast majority of scientists who actually study the data disagree with

You mean the same vast majority of scientists who predicted the global warming increase wrong??

The black line is their predicted model: https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

Its not even close to the actual warming

 

[JohnLarue]

Nah, you asked for just one scientist who's skeptical of global warming, and I provided you with three!!.
Now suddenly you want something from Nature magazine, which just proves you're trying to move the goalposts again (like a typical debate loser would do).

Nice try though, honeybun

Fuji always pull this type of shit
he has zero integrity and zero credibility

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Fuji always pull this type of shit
he has zero integrity and zero credibility

Notice how he tries to move the goalposts??

 

[FAST]

No childish insults,...

Solar cycles are cycles. They do not lead to an overall warming trend.

A small part of the scientific community felt that solar cycles were to blame for the warming trend and the data available now shows they are wrong.

OH,... you mean the "revised" data,... OH I get it now.


I do not trust any association that can only exist if the is a climate calamity,...first global warming, now climate change.

So debating here will be difficult.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

^^^^^^^ wurd!!!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Which the vast majority of scientists who actually study the data disagree with

Good thing you said vast majority of scientists, and not all scientists.

I'm glad we agree

 

[fuji]

Nah, you asked for one scientist who's skeptical of global warming, and I provided you with three!!

Now suddenly you want something from Nature magazine, which just proves you're trying to move the goalposts again (like a typical debate loser would do).

Nice try though, honeybun

I asked you for one who got his views published in a credible journal. You failed to find even one.

 

[fuji]

Notice how he tries to move the goalposts??

The goalposts didn't move, you missed the goal.

 

[FAST]

I asked you for one who got his views published in a credible journal. You failed to find even one.

And just what "credible" magazine would that be fuji,... obviously it can't be your discredited Nature magazine,...???

So pick another one,... !!!

Constantly running away from a point,... by simply referring to some magazine over and over again,... is not responding.

Still waiting for one.