The 'great reset' no one asked for

[JohnLarue]

If that's the only line of argument you have.

no its not

what is in the "Green New Deal" (you supported) that is missing from the Great Reset that cause you to claim the Great Rest does not exist?
How can a published webpage from a world famous organization just.......... "Not exist" ?
You read it and then claim it "Does not exist", How does that work?
or
Did you not read it and just claim it "Does not exist" How does that work?
Same questions on Justin saying the Great Reset is "A wonderful opportunity to make the world a better place"
If the Great Reset is a conspiracy theory , apparently Justin seems to think it wonderful

If it does not exist than you need to explain what it is he thinks is so delightfully wonderful

Sorry but physics doesn't mean you just make things up. The fact that you still deny the resonance of certain gases due to infrared radiation say a lot.

You should be sorry & you are going to be sorry

Nothing I state is made up. I can assure you of that
And I have never denied the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by molecules. Once again you try to misrepresent me with a lie (STOP THAT)

Your ability to state "the resonance of certain gases due to infrared radiation" does not mean you understand it and I am quite certain you do not

Now that you tried to fake your way through the physical phenomenon of absorption of electromagnetic radiation by molecules lets see what you really understand.
perhaps you will finally learn something, however I doubt it
So tell us
1. What % of wavelengths in the infrared spectrum does CO2 (400 parts per million in the atmosphere) absorb?
2. What % of wavelength in the infrared spectrum does water vapor absorb (2-4% in the atmosphere) absorb?
3. What are the implications of the Beer-Lambert Law on the amount of energy absorbed by molecules as concentration increases?
4. Explain the variance in energy of absorption as a function of variable wavelength ?
6. Why did Ronald Reagans star wars defense system never pan out as he expected (think infrared guidance)?
6. Why were cloudy days such a problem for this system ?
7. Provided us with another example of a physical phenomenon where a 400 parts per million concentration can have such a devastating effect?
8. Describe the different modes of resonance for a tri-atomic molecule?
9. Describe the impact of Jet streams on temperature changes?
10 What is the lapse rate & why is it important ?
11. Describe the difference in energy between a UV and an infrared photon and their impact on a chemical bond ?
12 At what height has almost all of the infrared radiation emanating from a surface been absorbed?
13. At what concentration of CO2 has 50% of the infrared radiation available to CO2 been absorbed /
14. What does the shift in wavelength along with the increase and narrowing of the energy distribution curve as a function of temperature increases as described by the Stephen-Boltzmann law do to the primary absorption band of CO2?
15 Why is turbulence so important in Climate? (Hint think convection, evapouration , wind sheer , Jet streams )
16. What is the escape window ?

Gee its too bad you do not the names of the dudes mascarding as scientists whom you follow blindly, otherwise you could try to ask them for help
Hint most environuts passing themselves off as climate experts never take first year physics, let alone optics, quantum physics , or spectroscopy.
Most of them spend all their time as computer modellers , generating the same model(Garbage In, Garbage Out), and then they have a consensus??? Go figure ?? They get bitch slapped and their funding dries up if they do arrive at the same result

I know you will not even try to these questions as you simply do not understand the physics.

This is usually the point where attack my character, misrepresent me , utter some falsehoods, use the "Conspiracy Theory" angle, then run away
Save us the trouble and just run away now



.

 

[Fun For All]

no its not

what is in the "Green New Deal" (you supported) that is missing from the Great Reset that cause you to claim the Great Rest does not exist?
How can a published webpage from a world famous organization just.......... "Not exist" ?
You read it and then claim it "Does not exist", How does that work?
or
Did you not read it and just claim it "Does not exist" How does that work?
Same questions on Justin saying the Great Reset is "A wonderful opportunity to make the world a better place"
If the Great Reset is a conspiracy theory , apparently Justin seems to think it wonderful

If it does not exist than you need to explain what it is he thinks is so delightfully wonderful



You should be sorry & you are going to be sorry

Nothing I state is made up. I can assure you of that
And I have never denied the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by molecules. Once again you try to misrepresent me with a lie (STOP THAT)

Your ability to state "the resonance of certain gases due to infrared radiation" does not mean you understand it and I am quite certain you do not

Now that you tried to fake your way through the physical phenomenon of absorption of electromagnetic radiation by molecules lets see what you really understand.
perhaps you will finally learn something, however I doubt it
So tell us
1. What % of wavelengths in the infrared spectrum does CO2 (400 parts per million in the atmosphere) absorb?
2. What % of wavelength in the infrared spectrum does water vapor absorb (2-4% in the atmosphere) absorb?
3. What are the implications of the Beer-Lambert Law on the amount of energy absorbed by molecules as concentration increases?
4. Explain the variance in energy of absorption as a function of variable wavelength ?
6. Why did Ronald Reagans star wars defense system never pan out as he expected (think infrared guidance)?
6. Why were cloudy days such a problem for this system ?
7. Provided us with another example of a physical phenomenon where a 400 parts per million concentration can have such a devastating effect
8. Describe the different modes of resonance for a tri-atomic molecule
9. Describe the impact of Jet streams on temperature changes
10 What is the lapse rate & why is it important
11. Describe the difference in energy between a UV and an infrared photon and their impact on a chemical bond
12 At what height has almost all of the infrared radiation emanating from a surface been absorbed
13. At what concentration of CO2 has 50% of the infrared radiation available to CO2 been absorbed
14. What does the shift in wavelength along with the increase and narrowing of the energy distribution curve as a function of temperature increases as described by the Stephen-Boltzmann law do to the primary absorption band of CO2?
15 Why is turbulence so important in Climate? (Hint think convection, evapouration , wind sheer , Jet streams )
16. What is the escape window ?

Gee its too bad you do not the names of the dudes mascarding as scientists whom you follow blindly, otherwise you could try to ask them for help
Hint most environuts passing themselves off as climate experts never take first year physics, let alone optics, quantum physics , or spectroscopy.
Most of them spend all their time as computer modellers , generating the same model(Garbage In, Garbage Out)

I know you will not even try to these questions as you simply do not understand the underlining physics,

This is usually the point where attack my character, misrepresent me , utter some falsehoods and use the "Conspiracy Theory" angle, then run away
Run away now



.

Holy cow...couldn’t you summarize?

 

[Frankfooter]

So tell us
1. What % of wavelengths in the infrared spectrum does CO2 (400 parts per million in the atmosphere) absorb?
2. What % of wavelength in the infrared spectrum does water vapor absorb (2-4% in the atmosphere) absorb?
3. What are the implications of the Beer-Lambert Law on the amount of energy absorbed by molecules as concentration increases?
4. Explain the variance in energy of absorption as a function of variable wavelength ?
6. Why did Ronald Reagans star wars defense system never pan out as he expected (think infrared guidance)?
6. Why were cloudy days such a problem for this system ?
7. Provided us with another example of a physical phenomenon where a 400 parts per million concentration can have such a devastating effect?
8. Describe the different modes of resonance for a tri-atomic molecule?
9. Describe the impact of Jet streams on temperature changes?
10 What is the lapse rate & why is it important ?
11. Describe the difference in energy between a UV and an infrared photon and their impact on a chemical bond ?
12 At what height has almost all of the infrared radiation emanating from a surface been absorbed?
13. At what concentration of CO2 has 50% of the infrared radiation available to CO2 been absorbed /
14. What does the shift in wavelength along with the increase and narrowing of the energy distribution curve as a function of temperature increases as described by the Stephen-Boltzmann law do to the primary absorption band of CO2?
15 Why is turbulence so important in Climate? (Hint think convection, evapouration , wind sheer , Jet streams )
16. What is the escape window ?
.

johnnylarue here is the Cliff Clavin of Terb.
16 questions he copied over from denier sites.

Take the first question, that comes from this paper:

http://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017.01-20-FKR-sur-CO2.pdf

But that paper has a flaw on page 5 that negates the findings larue likes to quote.

we consider an isothermal atmosphere of T = 288 K.

The atmosphere isn't isothermal, or doesn't have a constant temperature.

The rest of his 'questions' are based of similar shoddy work, which he won't question because it fits his confirmation bias that he's smarter than scientists.

 

[JohnLarue]

Holy cow...couldn’t you summarize?

Climate is very complex
so are the issues related to the Great Reset / Green New deal

 

[basketcase]

no its not

what is in the "Green New Deal" (you supported) ...


.

1) Can't you even keep straight which boogeyman you're pushing?
2) Care to show a single post where I say I support the GND? There are some things I think are effective and others that should be reworked. But considering you still deny that the global temperatures are rising.....

 

[Frankfooter]

Climate is very complex

That's why you should take the advice of people who study it for their entire lives instead of wacko posters on this board.
Read the summaries of all the science here.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

www.ipcc.ch

And don't listen to people on this board who can't even get the basic function of CO2 in the atmosphere correct.

 

[JohnLarue]

1) Can't you even keep straight which boogeyman you're pushing?
2) Care to show a single post where I say I support the GND? There are some things I think are effective and others that should be reworked. But considering you still deny that the global temperatures are rising.....

Oh boy
I am not going to search 18 months of your posts to find your reaction to AOCs clown party announcement

There are some things I think are effective and others that should be reworked.

Effective?
In your strange world maybe. Planning to destroy an economy is not usually associated with "effective"

There you go, you just saved me from searching to find your endorsement

But considering you still deny that the global temperatures are rising....

Temperatures move around, always have always will , could it be getting warmer? since that has happened many times before like the Medieval warm period. Sure they cold be increasing
No denial there

The temperature record you to use to demand radical change is way too short, incomplete , filled with errors and apparently subject to manipulation, Michael Mann. His deceit is not erasable
The real problem for you is the physics just does not support the alarmist claim and you do not understand the physics.
you just pretend the physics does not exist

Since you did not like the t-shirt I got you something educational
The answers to many questions can be found in this diagram.
Wow look at how much bigger the area is under the Water Vapor curve vs. CO2

 

[Frankfooter]

Temperatures move around, always have always will , could it be getting warmer? since that has happened many times before like the Medieval warm period. Sure they cold be increasing
No denial there

The difference between the global temp now and a thermal maximum is 5-8ºC warmer than it is now.
We've already increased the planet's temp 1.5º and are on track to raise it to at 4ºC, close to another thermal maximum.
The last ice age was about 8ºC cooler.

So sure, the planet has been warmer and cooler, but that doesn't mean a thermal maximum or ice age would be fun.

 

[basketcase]

Oh boy
I am not going to search 18 months of your posts to find your reaction to AOCs clown party announcement
...

Thanks for admitting you just make shit up.

And I love when scientifically illiterate people parrot something they saw online without having a clue of what it means. Your graph quite clearly shows that human produced gases such as CO2, methane, ozone, and N2O are greenhouse gases. What you impeccably flawed logic quite clearly misses is that although water vapour is a greenhouse gas as well, we have no way to impact it other than as part of a feedback loop.

There is essentially no one in the scientific world that concludes anthropogenic greenhouse gases aren't playing a role in the warming of the world and none of them do like you do and deny that we are experiencing a rapid warming trend.

Your claim that we don't have much information about past climates is also childishly uniformed. Between fossils, ice cores, tree rings, coral growth, and sedimentary layers, we have a fairly solid picture of overall trends of historic climate going back essentially to the Earth's formation.

But keep on you science denying ways. You're not much different than the young Earth creationists who've learned a bunch of science words and pretend their religion is actually scientific fact.

 

[JohnLarue]

Thanks for admitting you just make shit up.

says the man who blindly follows what he does not understand

Your graph quite clearly shows that human produced gases such as CO2, methane, ozone, and N2O are greenhouse gases.

You just provided a perfect example of ideology driving an inaccurate and incomplete conclusion
you do not understand what you are looking at, but you let your messed up political agenda determine what your lack of scientific understanding could not

#1. It makes no distinction between natural and human produced CO2, methane, and N2O - yet you want to claim something entirely different from what it really does show
#2. Those gases have been in the atmosphere long before humans came along
#2a ozone, is primarily produced by ionization in the ionosphere, miniscule amounts are thought to be produced by human skin. do not forget you will need to tax that soon too
#3. Its the overlap of water vapor at wavelengths of absorption by CO2 which is one of the important aspect of this diagram. Water Vapor is orders of magnitude greater than Co2 in concentration and it absorbs at almost all of the wavelengths CO2 does and then many , many more
#4 The blue area is the escape window. ie frequencies / wavelengths which are not absorbed and transmit freely into space. If there is no escape window, then the planet gets hot. The issue is if the escape window were to get closed off by the addition of greenhouse gases and that is not the case as it is the frequency of absorption which is primary driver rather than concentration . Notice the saturation of absorption in the second panel
#5 Only the fringe bands of the 666 absorption band of CO2 are close to the escape window
#6. Here is the kicker . if temperature increase, the escape window shifts to the left as it steepens and and narrows cutting off the incremental fringe CO2 absorption. The Stephen-Boltzmann equation has T to the fourth power making this impact quite sensitive to temperature changes
#7. There are many, many factors which influence our extremely complex , dynamic and chotic climate. This is far to complex to model and certainly CO2 is not the control knob

What you impeccably flawed logic quite clearly misses is that although water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well, we have no way to impact it other than as part of a feedback loop

.
Nope
Photons travelling at the speed of light do not distinguished between a CO2 or a H2O molecule. , if the photon has the right frequency and energy and it hits a molecule which happens to resonate at that frequency and temperature , energy is absorbed
Water vapor is 2-4% in the atmosphere and CO2 in measure in parts per million. The others are measured in parts per billion
So statistically water vapor is the greenhouse gas which the photon will hit with the others being bit players

Since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas by orders of magnitude if your flawed feed back loop theory was correct the planet would have boiled long long ago

There is essentially no one in the scientific world that concludes anthropogenic greenhouse gases aren't playing a role in the warming of the world and none of them do like you do and deny that we are experiencing a rapid warming trend.

Bullshit, there are lots of extremely highly qualified scientists who believe the alarmist claim is way over blown and who defiantly do not believe CO2 is the control knob for climate
How many times do you need to be told science is not determined by a show of hands??
Your a god damn engineer !!
do you design a bridge based upon survey results???
If so let me know which bridges are designed that way so I can avoid driving across them

Rapid?
You have two hundred years of incomplete error filled temperature data which is subject to massive interpretation and manipulation (Michael Mann) which is being misused to make conclusions about a climate which has been constantly changing over billions of years

Your claim that we don't have much information about past climates is also childishly uniformed. Between fossils, ice cores, tree rings, coral growth, and sedimentary layers, we have a fairly solid picture of overall trends of historic climate going back essentially to the Earth's formation.

The geological record does not support CO2 as the control knob for climate

But keep on you science denying ways. You're not much different than the young Earth creationists who've learned a bunch of science words and pretend their religion is actually scientific fact.

Too bad for you that science does not align with your ideology
But do not let the thought of millions of people being trapped in poverty or the economic destruction your LIE will cause stop you from fooling yourself and others

CO2 is not the control knob for climate

 

[Frankfooter]

says the man who blindly follows what he does not understand

Who you gonna believe?
Self designated expert and scientific genius, johnny larue, aka Mr Science or NASA, the agency that just landed a mission on an asteroid?

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Earth’s temperature depends on how much sunlight the land, oceans, and atmosphere absorb, and how much heat the planet radiates back to space. This fact sheet describes the net flow of energy through different parts of the Earth system, and explains how the planetary energy budget stays in balance.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Mr Science doesn't understand that a net 0.8 watt/square metre energy balance across the planet is enough to tip the climate back into an unstable state.

 

[basketcase]

says the man who blindly follows what he does not understand
...

The graph proves that human produced gases are greenhouse gases. Do you think reposting it and throwing in a bunch of random ideas changes that fact?

Sorry but unless you have a plan to reduce the amount of water vapour in the air, all we're left with is decreasing human generated greenhouse gases.


You are also full of shit as to what evidence like ice cores and the like shows. Oxygen isotopes in ice cores show us quite clearly the temperatures at the time the ice was laid down and captured gases in the cores show us the atmospheric composition.

Solar activity also plays a role in climate and global temperatures but those variations don't account for the warming trend over the past century.

 

[JohnLarue]

The graph proves that human produced gases are greenhouse gases. Do you think reposting it and throwing in a bunch of random ideas changes that fact?

NO! It proves water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas and the other naturally occurring (+ the human produced) gases are bit players. (o3 is not human produced in any significant quantities)
Since water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas, your feedback loop theory can not be correct as that would be a perpetual loop which would have boiled the atmosphere long long ago
The fact CO2 was present in much higher concentrations in the past also invalidates your feedback loop theory. What turned off the perpetual feedback loop? opps big hole in your theory

If you call the Stephan Boltzmann LAW random ideas, you are proving
1. You do not understand this at all
2. You are perfectly willing to ignore scientific facts if they do not fit your political ideology
the Stephan Boltzmann LAW , remains a scientific law until it is disproven experimentally and that has not happened yet.

Sorry but unless you have a plan to reduce the amount of water vapor in the air, all we're left with is decreasing human generated greenhouse gases.

You should be sorry
You are applying circulating reasoning starting with the assumption man must be able to control climate and concluding thus man must be causing the climate to change
Climate changes, always has, always will and has changed dramatically many many times long before man stood erect

You are also full of shit as to what evidence like ice cores and the like shows. Oxygen isotopes in ice cores show us quite clearly the temperatures at the time the ice was laid down and captured gases in the cores show us the atmospheric composition.

Yeah too bad for you Co2 increases lag behind temperature increases by hundreds to thousands of years
The oceans cover 2/3 of the planet ,and the oceans contain way more CO2 than the atmosphere (Orders of magnitude higher)
CO2 solubility in water decreases as temperatures rise
Hence when temperature increases, CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere
Hence when temperature decreases, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans from the atmosphere
Your position is not supported by fundamental (grade 10 - solubility) properties

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years

Solar activity also plays a role in climate and global temperatures but those variations don't account for the warming trend over the past century.

Again climate is an extremely complex phenomena, with many many factors influencing it
Don't take my word for it

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

The IPCC states
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Just in case you remain obstinate (which you will )

What is chaos theory in simple terms? - Google Zoeken

www.google.com

Chaos theory, in mechanics and mathematics, the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws. A more accurate term, deterministic chaos, suggests a paradox because it connects two notions that are familiar and commonly regarded as incompatible.

the warming trend over the past century

A hundred years ?
Based on two hundred years of incomplete & error filled data ? (data subject to massive processing, judgement calls and manipulation- Michael Mann)
Relative to a climate which has constantly been changing over billions of years
A wee bit of a sampling error ? No its a massive sampling error

And you claim to be an engineer?

The worst part is the arrogance required to pronounce this as absolute and the intentionally malicious attacks on people who question your absolute and incorrect conclusion

A valid scientific theory needs to withstand any and all challenges
Any theory which requires the silencing (hey cancel culture again????) of those who question it is not worth a bucket of piss

Now here is a theory and you are are more than welcome to try and scientifically disprove it
Hurling insults and quoting a consensus of opinion is not scientific proof

 

[Frankfooter]

NO! It proves water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas and the other naturally occurring (+ the human produced) gases are bit players. (o3 is not human produced in any significant quantities)
Since water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas, your feedback loop theory can not be correct as that would be a perpetual loop which would have boiled the atmosphere long long ago

That's fucking idiotic.

Larue still doesn't understand that water vapour is a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing effect on the climate.
How many years will it take him to understand even half as much as Greta T?

 

[basketcase]

NO! It proves water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas ...

It's a clear sign of a lost cause when people think they need to endlessly repost the same arguments and the same diagrams.

No one with a shred of a brain denies that water vapour is a greenhouse gas but unless you have a plan to reduce the amount then you are just uselessly spewing garbage as usual. But what can we expect from someone who thinks that the global average temperature isn't rising and who thinks scientists are lying to us about it?


You are also woefully uniformed with your "withstand[ing] any and all challenges" bullshit. Every other theory so far proposed has already been assessed and found to have way more flaws than AGW. You being unwilling or unable to understand it means nothing to the scientific community.

But let's play that game. Measurements say Earth's average atmospheric temperature is rising. If you think water vapour is the major cause, can you show a corresponding increase in water vapour or explain where the additional water vapour came from?

 

[JohnLarue]

It's a clear sign of a lost cause when people think they need to endlessly repost the same arguments and the same diagrams.

Actually its a clear sign when someone ignores the science and proclaims an opinion poll decides the matter, that they have zero (absolutely zero) interest in the truth and have an agenda to push

No one with a shred of a brain denies that water vapor is a greenhouse gas

Gee ,why is complexly absent from 99% of the educational video's on greenhouse gases?

but unless you have a plan to reduce the amount

Man kind is not putting more water vapor into the atmosphere, so what makes you think we need to reduce its concentration??

Besides that, it is not physically possible for man to accomplish that

then you are just uselessly spewing garbage as usual.

you do not understand it, so you call it garbage

But what can we expect from someone who thinks that the global average temperature isn't rising and who thinks scientists are lying to us about it?

#1 I was clear enough when I said temperatures move around. - again you intentionally mis-represent me. Another sure sign of someone with aero interest in the truth and with an agenda
#2 Do not mistake activists for real scientists. The IPCC is littered with greenpeace activists , you can look it up on their website

You are also woefully uniformed with your "withstand[ing] any and all challenges" bullshit.

No you are.
Any scientific theory has to rely on silencing debate on the matter is not worth a bucket

Every other theory so far proposed has already been assessed and found to have way more flaws than AGW.

Finally an admission AGW has flaws
Actually most other theories have not been properly explored as funding is never available , so you are 100% wrong on that point
besides the absorption is more about the frequency than concentration due to its logarithmic nature . Saturation

You being unwilling or unable to understand it means nothing to the scientific community.

Too funny you do not understand it at all, yet you are claiming you are right

But let's play that game. Measurements say Earth's average atmospheric temperature is rising.

No big surprise as the planets climate is chaotic (as per the IPCC) and has changed many, many times in the past

If you think water vapor is the major cause,

WTF ?? I never said that. STOP misquoting me
Why should I be attributed the ignorance of a messed up conclusion you came up with

I did say Water vapor is the dominate Greenhouse Gas and thus CO2 is not the control knob on climate as portrayed by the alarmist.
That does not automatically mean Water Vapor is the control knob for climate.
Why do you think an extremely complex, dynamic and chaotic system must controlled by a single gas?
The word "chaotic", (As per the IPCC) should have informed you ( and them) that no one input controls climate
Again you claim to be an Engineer, but you do not understand a "chaotic system" ????????????? ???

THERE IS NO EMPRICAL PROOF THAT THE GREENHOUSE THEORY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY TREND OVER THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS
Its a unproven theory , not a proven physical LAW
you have a loose spurious correlation based upon data, which is incomplete, too short and filled with errors and sadly subject to manipulation. Michael Mann

can you show a corresponding increase in water vapor or explain where the additional water vapor came from?

Again I never claimed there is extra water vapor? Let alone man made extra water vapor ?? WTF

Again you are starting with the premise that man can control the climate and concluding therefore any changes to the climate must be man, made
You do this knowing the planets climate constantly changed before humans stood erect
Stop doing that, its not at all logical
Lacking logic,?? hey perhaps you could check to see if perhaps your ideology is driving this incorrect premise

Real Science requires thinking deeply and carefully about a scientific phenomena and then applying the laws of physics to the experimental observations.
#1 You can not substitute an opinion poll for that
#2 There is no room for ideology, in the process if you really want to obtain a true understanding
#3. Michael Mann & the alarmists have set climate science back by a century and I am am quite concerned about the impact of their actions on science over-all

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually its a clear sign when someone ignores the science and proclaims an opinion poll decides the matter, that they have zero (absolutely zero) interest in the truth and have an agenda to push

No mirrors in your house, larue?

The science is available at the IPCC, NASA, AAAS and every other legit scientific agency in the world and it says what you are pushing is wrong.
CO2 is a forcing effect, add more changes the planets temp and now with 0.8 watts/ sq metre of more energy staying in the atmosphere the planet is warming.
Water vapour is a feedback effect, its the largest gas but only changes when the atmosphere heats or cools, so it doesn't change the climate, its levels are changed by the climate.

Any kid in high school can understand this, why can't you?

 

[JohnLarue]

When you are telling others there has been definitive ???? warming trend, be sure not to omit a few things
1. You would not have noticed the trend if the activist/ scientists had not told you about based upon their very flawed data analysis
2. GIGO Garbage in Garbage out

Translate: Our climate models are shit, but no need to tell people that

And of course we could not talk about incompetence and manipulation without mentioning Catherine McKenna's despicable actions

3. https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change
Feds scrapped 100 years of data on climate change
Sep 17, 2019

Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.

The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.

Gee, what are the chances we are going to see more announcements propaganda about NEW ALL TIME RECORD TEMPATURES from Environment Canada ?

an earlier report on forest fires, Environment Canada blamed climate change for “record-shattering” forest fires in British Columbia that destroyed 3.3 million acres in 2018, omitting the Chinchaga Firestorm that destroyed five million acres in B.C. and Alberta in 1950.

You are demanding we shut down our primary energy source based on the say so of some very incompetent, manipulative and deceitful people
The temperature record is a mess

 

[Frankfooter]

When you are telling others there has been definitive ???? warming trend, be sure not to omit a few things
1. You would not have noticed the trend if the activist/ scientists had not told you about based upon their very flawed data analysis
2. GIGO Garbage in Garbage out

New study out by the Lancet, climate change is killing people.

The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises

For the Chinese, French, German, and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

www.thelancet.com

The insurance industry statement.

Global insurance industry statement: Adapting to climate change in developing countries – United Nations Environment – Finance Initiative

www.unepfi.org

Basically everybody but scientifically illiterate people like larue know what's happening.
Every year that there is a new record is another year larue is wrong.

 

[basketcase]

...
Gee ,why is complexly absent from 99% of the educational video's on greenhouse gases?
...

Wow. Another asinine question. Next you're going to be asking why the quantum behaviour of electromagnetic radiation isn't discussed in grade 3 textbooks.

The rest of your post is just rambling about science being a liberal plot and ignoring that all those other competing theories have been tested.

If you need proof of your bullshit attempts to science, your complete refusal to suggest a better theory to discuss as an alternative shows you don't have any interest in finding out where the evidence leads.