Sciencescienceclimatedeniersobliviousignorantfoolishbrainwashedfacts

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:22 PM

One Chart that Illustrates How Stunningly Ignorant Climate Change Deniers Are.



http://www.iflscience.com/environment/this-temperature-timeline-of-earth-shows-exactly-how-nonsensical-climatechange-deniers-really-are/

93 replies, 6990 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 93 replies Author Time Post
Reply One Chart that Illustrates How Stunningly Ignorant Climate Change Deniers Are. (Original post)
Frostlight Sep 2016 OP
Juan Rico Sep 2016 #1
Frostlight Sep 2016 #7
specs Sep 2016 #2
Frostlight Sep 2016 #8
specs Sep 2016 #13
Frostlight Sep 2016 #46
specs Sep 2016 #48
Thorson Sep 2016 #3
Frostlight Sep 2016 #10
Thorson Sep 2016 #24
Noumenon Sep 2016 #28
specs Sep 2016 #30
Noumenon Sep 2016 #31
oflguy Nov 2016 #80
fncceo Sep 2016 #59
Jack Burton Nov 2016 #73
oflguy Sep 2016 #4
Frostlight Sep 2016 #11
oflguy Sep 2016 #12
Frostlight Sep 2016 #19
oflguy Sep 2016 #23
Frostlight Sep 2016 #36
oflguy Sep 2016 #40
Frostlight Sep 2016 #37
oflguy Sep 2016 #41
Frostlight Sep 2016 #42
oflguy Sep 2016 #44
Frostlight Sep 2016 #50
oflguy Sep 2016 #51
Post removed Sep 2016 #52
oflguy Sep 2016 #55
specs Sep 2016 #14
Frostlight Sep 2016 #16
specs Sep 2016 #20
Frostlight Sep 2016 #43
specs Sep 2016 #47
Frostlight Sep 2016 #18
specs Sep 2016 #21
Frostlight Sep 2016 #22
specs Sep 2016 #29
oflguy Sep 2016 #25
Jack Burton Sep 2016 #33
Frostlight Sep 2016 #38
oflguy Sep 2016 #39
Frostlight Sep 2016 #45
oflguy Sep 2016 #49
Frostlight Sep 2016 #53
oflguy Sep 2016 #56
oflguy Sep 2016 #58
oflguy Sep 2016 #57
oflguy Nov 2016 #81
Appalachian Man Sep 2016 #5
mindwalker_2pi Sep 2016 #6
Appalachian Man Sep 2016 #9
specs Sep 2016 #15
Appalachian Man Sep 2016 #17
MeatSandwich Sep 2016 #26
Appalachian Man Sep 2016 #34
MeatSandwich Sep 2016 #35
Jack Burton Sep 2016 #27
Frostlight Sep 2016 #54
Paradigm Sep 2016 #32
Ursus Magnus Oct 2016 #60
oflguy Oct 2016 #61
marmot84 Oct 2016 #63
oflguy Oct 2016 #64
Ursus Magnus Nov 2016 #82
oflguy Nov 2016 #83
marmot84 Nov 2016 #84
oflguy Jan 2017 #85
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #86
oflguy Jan 2017 #87
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #88
oflguy Jan 2017 #89
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #90
oflguy Jan 2017 #91
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #92
oflguy Jan 2017 #93
marmot84 Oct 2016 #62
oflguy Oct 2016 #65
marmot84 Oct 2016 #66
oflguy Oct 2016 #67
marmot84 Oct 2016 #68
oflguy Oct 2016 #69
marmot84 Nov 2016 #70
oflguy Nov 2016 #71
marmot84 Nov 2016 #72
oflguy Nov 2016 #74
marmot84 Nov 2016 #75
oflguy Nov 2016 #76
marmot84 Nov 2016 #77
oflguy Nov 2016 #78
marmot84 Nov 2016 #79

Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:24 PM

1. Just read that at the source, the webcomic XKCD. I read it regularly (and recommend it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:03 PM

7. It is one of my favorites along with Happiness and Cyanide.

And they do reality on occasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:28 PM

2. So, your opinion is that the Earth only started at the last Ice age :)

Better than the 600 odd years you religious nuts usually start at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:04 PM

8. -_-


Right. Over. Your. Head.

Thanks for proving the point of the OP so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:18 PM

13. I understand physics of ice :) You apparently do not :)

If you start at a negative temperature (required to make icebergs), you have nothing else but to go up from there

Hey, it is OK, you are a nutter that relies on faulty data. Because you feel that you might be at the top of the food chain when it all shakes out and get your fair share of wealth you have not earned, nor have the intelligence to make.

At least you are willing to admit the Earth is older than the 600 years you nutters typical admit. I give you that much, not much as you fail to understand the physical nature of what is needed to make ice, but hey baby steps are OK too

Translation for Rat party and Hillary Supporters.

UGH! ICE COLD, WARM FAST TO MELT ICE UGH BASH WOMAN OVERHEAD SO I CAN FLEX MY MANHOOD! UGH UGH OOH UGH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 09:06 PM

46. LMAO. "Negative temperature"

Reading your posts makes everyone in the room lose IQ points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #46)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 09:09 PM

48. You think Ice forms at 40 degrees?

lol, You are correct in people losing IQ points, those that follow the religious fanatics of Climate change lower the IQ of the world by at least 20 points.

Only someone with a sub 50 IQ could believe that Man caused the temperature to be much warmer 1 billion years ago than it has ever been today

Let us start with the fact that most of your religious instruments are 5 feet off the ground in predominantly warm climates Talking about skewing science and data hahaha

You do not believe in science, you have faith that what you say is true and to make it true you use the smallest sample of data as you can and toss out any that does not support your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:43 PM

3. To use your own words. It's stunningly ignorant to think that man can change the climate.

The climate has been changing constantly since time began and will continue to do so and there's nothing we can do change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thorson (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:10 PM

10. Just WOW!

You just have to double-down on that ignorance!

Stunning! So, in all of that 22,000 years, the fact that the global average temperature moved many orders of magnitude faster in the mere 150 years that we put more than hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the climate just passes through you like an idea through a boulder.

You really can't understand how amazingly oblivious you are.

FFS, go back to school and LEARN something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 03:45 AM

24. I do like to learn. Getting indoctrinated - not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thorson (Reply #24)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 06:36 AM

28. Wow, that is funny. So it seems "indoctrinated" = hearing stuff I don't want to.

That really puts the lie to your first sentence.

Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Noumenon (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 06:53 AM

30. Believing and having faith we have the power to change the climate is

the very definition of indoctrination. It goes to the heart of the problem where you nimrods believe you are special and have powers over this earth. You do not, and the climate has changed billions of years before man even stepped foot on this planet or invented cars, power plants, and fracking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 07:12 AM

31. Conservatives are so funny when they try to be ignorantly fatalistic.

Yeah, we have no power over the Earth. In just the US alone we have 200 million cars and enough paved roads to circle the globe 160 times. There are about 5000 planes airborne every second. We throw out 4 pounds of trash per person per day.

But when it comes to the consequences cons babble on like idiots about how we're helpless!

Look, if you want to live like a primitive jackass who doesn't use indoctrination (oh I'm sorry, I meant science but I am using conservative-speak) at least have the courage of your convictions to do it right.

Get rid of all technology, especially medical technology rooted in that bad old evolution.

The world wouldn't miss that backwards attitude very much when you croaked from something that "indoctrination" beat a century back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Noumenon (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 07:14 PM

80. So if we keep the cars, planes and roads

and only throw out 2 pounds of trash every day instead of 4, how much would that slow down global warming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 18, 2016, 06:35 AM

59. Ummmm ....

' the global average temperature moved many orders of magnitude faster in the mere 150 years '


Let's say you're being a bit hyperbolic and say you meant only a few orders of magnitude faster. Let's say five orders of magnitude faster So temperatures are rising 10^5 times faster today than they during the American Civil War?

So. In 1866 the rate of change was 1/100000th of a degree per century, while today it's a whopping one degree per century?

How does that explain glaciers covering North America only 50,000 years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fncceo (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 05:29 PM

73. You are wasting your time asking questions.

That particular poster uses scientific terms with no concept of the term's meaning. "Orders of magnitude" is just one example. Doomers like to throw around terms and phrases that sound dramatic with no basis in reality. A key component of global warming hoax propaganda is using fact free terms and phrases that promote fear mongering.

Below is an example of how doomers frame the global warming issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:53 PM

4. That chart is a complete lie

To think someone actually spent time making it

Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data
March 12, 1997

Recently, much scientific debate has focused on the global temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ, they reveal no discernable warming trend in the Earth's lower atmosphere over the last 18+ years.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center) and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) have used the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flying aboard NOAA's TIROS-N weather satellites to construct a continuous record of lower tropospheric (from the surface to about 4 miles) temperatures since the first MSU was launched in late 1978. The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade.

In the latest (March 13, 1997) edition of Nature, two scientists, James Hurrell and Kevin Trenberth, report that sea-surface temperatures monitored by buoys and ships at various locations in the tropics show, for the same period as the satellite record, a warming trend of +0.12 deg. C/decade, in apparent disagreement with the satellites. This so-called "disagreement" between satellite and surface temperature measurements is not new.

Despite the fact that the Hurrell and Trenberth estimate of the temperature of the atmosphere through a simple linear regression model based only on the sea surface temperatures, and a global climate model simulation with the same sea surface temperatures but no stratospheric volcanic aerosols, while the MSU data actually measure the temperature of the free atmosphere, Hurrell and Trenberth conclude that the satellite data must be wrong.

The recent paper's conclusion is based on two apparent "breaks" in the satellite versus sea-water temperature record, one in late 1981 and the other in late 1991. "During the first period, we had two separate satellites, operating simultaneously, and agreeing with each other to about 0.02 degrees C. So their estimate of the late 1981 break is inconsistent with these observations," observed Dr. Spencer, an atmospheric scientist at NASA.

"There isn't a problem with the measurements that we can find," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results." Dr. Christy explained further, "In particular, we've examined these two `breaks' claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites."

The disagreement between satellites and surface-based thermometers, furthermore, is not geographically uniform. "Over Northern Hemisphere land areas, where the best surface thermometer data exist, the satellites and thermometers agree almost perfectly", said Dr. Christy of UAH. "It is primarily over the oceans where they disagree by a couple of tenths of a degree C. This is most likely a well-known phenomenon in which the temperature in the deep atmosphere is not as strongly linked to the surface temperature as it is over land."

While Hurrell and Trenberth attempt to account for possible differences between the surface and deep-layer measurements by forcing a computerized atmospheric general circulation model (GCM) with the observed sea-water temperatures, this methodology is likely flawed. "It is well known that GCMs will produce atmospheric temperatures that vary in lock-step with the surface temperatures. In addition, the GCM did not include the direct forcing on the atmosphere from this century's two largest volcanoes," noted Spencer. "The physics in these models is not refined enough to do anything else. The satellite measurements provide the first observational evidence that the surface and deep layer temperatures can vary slightly differently (a couple of tenths of a degree) over a decade or so."

Spencer and Christy point out that the surface versus satellite temperature controversy will likely not die away soon. Through NASA's Earth Observing System, researchers will continue to improve our ability to monitor the Earth system so that we may understand the subtleties of variations in the global atmosphere as noted in the current discussion. It is only with direct observations of the earth that we will be able to sort out the issues of climate variability and change that affect the planet.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd12mar97_1/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:11 PM

11. No, it's spot-the fuck on. Otherwise you could find another time in history when global temperatures

moved this quickly.

But since your brainwashers tell you, it must be so... no need to actually provide an example, right?

Fucking pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:13 PM

12. The earth is not warming

You have been bamboozled

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:39 PM

19. The Moon is made of green cheese. Viruses are just tiny Gummi bears in your brain.

See? I can say amazingly stupid shit too.

So, now that the Sun revolves around the Earth in your little fantasy world, are your unicorns the ones that give you chocolate enemas?

Because here in reality, your bullshit has been laid flat. Just stay in your bubble, and pray your grandchildren never knew that you were... well, you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 12:41 AM

23. Say something intelligent

Explain to us what mean temperature data is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 07:12 PM

36. As you deniers have proven time and again, you can't recognize anything intelligent.

So why waste time.

The research and raw data is conclusive, learn it. Until then, those who understand it just shake their heads as you spew pure bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 08:11 PM

40. I'll take that as a "I have no earthly idea"

Wanna google it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 07:14 PM

37. As you deniers have proven time and again, you can't recognize anything intelligent.

So why waste time.

The research and raw data is conclusive, learn it. Until then, those who understand it just shake their heads as you spew pure bullshit. I've long since stopped trying to educate those who are incapable of learning anything that might contradict their ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 08:18 PM

41. I'm about to give you every opportunity in the world to teach not only me but everybody in the forum

Last edited Tue Sep 13, 2016, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)

explain psychrometrics to us. What is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 08:52 PM

42. It's the study of the gas/vapor dynamics of a given system.

Your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 08:59 PM

44. Very good

for a given system, if you raise the temperature, what happens to relative humidity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #44)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 11:01 PM

50. It goes down on a sharper curve than the accretion of water vapor per the volume of air,

(I'm assuming you're talking about water vapor in the atmosphere), and at certain points of saturation relative to temperature, the water condenses and becomes precipitation. Because the rate of condensation is faster than the capacity for the air to hold water vapor, water vapor is therefore a positive feedback mechanism and not a forcing mechanism. If it were both, then the oceans would obviously have boiled off of the planet within weeks of the first time temperatures rose after their creation.

But you obviously know this. So what's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 11:33 PM

51. The correct answer is

For a given system, if you raise the temperature, the relative humidity decreases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #51)


Response to Post removed (Reply #52)

Thu Sep 15, 2016, 12:51 AM

55. Afraid of another question?

Your answer was a classic example of psychobabble to hide your ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:19 PM

14. From about 6 billion BC to 5 BILLION BC :) Yw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:33 PM

16. You think that's clever? Using a time from billions of years before the climate we live in existed?

And then you don't get why we look at you as though you have the intellect of children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:47 PM

20. Well when your whole theory is based on the earth only being 22,000 years old

I can see why you have a problem using the whole history of our planet's climate.

We are still cooler than the historical average of the Global Climate Then; I do not subscribe to the belief that the earth did not exist before the last ice age....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 08:57 PM

43. Wow, that's pretty thick. the CURRENT CLIMATE and the AGE OF THE EARTH are NOT

the same thing.

I'm talking about 22,000 years of climate. I'll bet I could get a dull four year-old to understand the distinction you failed to make.

Referencing a point in our climate's history that couldn't sustain life as we know it is not only desperate, but it actually makes the point that you have to abandon any relationship to the climate that sustains us in order to try to make a point.... which winds up only proving mine.

I don't know why I do this. Maybe I'm just fascinated by just how amazingly absent of intellectual faculties some people are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 09:06 PM

47. and I am talking billions of years :)

The earth is older than 22,000 years, taking a small sample of time to prove your faith has not worked with all the other faith-based religions to swaying me to their side either

You do this because you are a few screws shy of a secured wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:34 PM

18. Go back and live there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:48 PM

21. Go back and live during the last ice age :)

Do you wish to claim that the earth was not going through drastic climate change during the time I posted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 12:11 AM

22. During the last Ice Age? No, it was no where near as drastic.

If you're talking about during the formation of the Earth when it was a climate nothing could fucking live in, then yeah, it was 'more drastic'.

So, I'll go back to the last ice age, and you go back to 5 or 6 BILLION years ago.... and we'll get to see who lives longer.

Seriously, HOW are you guys this thick?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 06:48 AM

29. NO where near as drastic?

The rapid cooling of the earth to the point that it froze over is not as drastic? Dude, you are delusional, and you are not aware at all how any of this stuff works

How are you this thick? You said name a time where climate change was this drastic. I picked a time where it was far more volatile, and man was not around dipshit. That is the whole problem with your religion; you guys have to ignore the much larger data set that would throw your entire idea at enslaving the people of this planet out the window.

There is climate change, but the earth has gone through much hotter periods and much colder periods than we are now. We were still thawing out from the last ice age 22,000 years ago and nowhere near the global average temperature for the entire life of our planet.

You are certifiable

Hint: You would not survive the Ice age any better than I would

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 03:49 AM

25. See how closed minded you people are?

You didn't even read the article I posted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 10:13 AM

33. How do you think they get 98% agreement between themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 07:20 PM

38. So I'm 'closed-minded' if I refuse to stop believing that 2+2=4.

What you can't wrap your igneous head around is that we actually know what the fuck we're talking about. The problem is that you guys posts easily destroyed propaganda or out of context excerpts of studies put out by the energy industry and then ignore the explanations of how it's wrong.

You can't learn so there's really no point in trying to teach you a damn thing anymore.

So I just post to make fun of you to the rest of the scientifically literate community.

And you're so kind to oblige!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 07:57 PM

39. Here is your opportunity to teach us

What are the components that make up heat in air?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 09:04 PM

45. "Components that make up heat in air".... Wow.

I'll just assume you were accidentally being clumsy.

If you mean, "What causes the air to absorb and retain heat", then the answer is, "Lots of things". Most of those are natural and cyclical, like perturbations in the Earth's orbit or anything else that can alter relative levels of insolation. The addition or subtraction of gasses that have absorptive/reflective/conducive properties also count. The Earth's albedo or lack thereof, whether you light a match after you go to the bathroom or your boyfriend uses the hairdryer longer than you do, cloud cover, humidity.... it goes on.

So, what's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 09:14 PM

49. I thought you was an expert on global warming

Want to google it, or would you prefer I tell you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #49)

Thu Sep 15, 2016, 12:11 AM

53. LMAO! It amazes me how your inability to compose a simple thought

and type it out properly compromises my understanding of climate change.

And that you can't see just how amazingly ignorant you are just stuns me. HOW can someone with virtually NO grasp for English that can write; "What are the components that make up heat in air?" and then worse: "I thought you was an expert on global warming.", much less the subject at hand, have such strong opinions on it?

I laugh at you. I cry for what your kind will leave our children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #53)

Thu Sep 15, 2016, 12:54 AM

56. You are quite the artful dodger

Google? or do you want me to answer the question for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #53)

Thu Sep 15, 2016, 11:15 PM

58. You seem so angry. Why?

I'm just asking you simple, basic questions. Any expert on global warming should be able to crank out an answer without a second thought.

I answered the question in a different thread. Look for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 15, 2016, 11:03 PM

57. My point is you don't know that heat in air consists of two components

sensible heat and latent heat.

Come on Frostlight. If you can't answer that simple, basic question, how are we going to get to the meaningful stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 07:27 PM

81. And you know its spot the fuck on because?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:57 PM

5. 9,000 BCE: Last American Pokemon Go Extinct! Haha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:01 PM

6. Don't worry, The Jesus will save us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:09 PM

9. Proof of Global Warming...

The seven last plagues occur during the last year of earth’s history. Global warming occurs during the fourth plague as described in Revelation 16:8,9 in the King James Version of the Bible: “And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.”

http://www.pacinst.com/warming.htm

Unless Climate Change deniers think the Bible is also a hoax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Appalachian Man (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:19 PM

15. It is all based on faith and myths :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 11:34 PM

17. Don't tell nolidad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Appalachian Man (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 04:19 AM

26. Do you understnd that revelation was predicted to occur in the 1st or early 2nd century?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 12:44 PM

34. So the timing is off. Are saying the Bible is a hoax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Appalachian Man (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 01:52 PM

35. No, I'm saying that it was written with a specific time frame in mind.

John wrote Revelation as a prisoner of Rome, having been exiled to an island for his "blasphemous" Christian teachings. In order to truly understand Revelation, you have to understand the political environment in which the book was written. Rome was hated, and considered the "evil" that needed to be conquered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 05:47 AM

27. oh noes! The dreaded hockey stick of doom turned on its side.

This is nothing but a recycled version of the discredited hockey stick graph. But I guess turning it on its side makes it scarier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 15, 2016, 12:16 AM

54. Yeah, except that reality is spelled out right in front of you.

Temps rose faster in the last hundred years than over the last 22,000.

And yet trolls like you continue to sell out the future of mankind and our own children for what?

A few bucks?

A Laugh?

If multiverse theory holds, then I get to meet you outside of time, and we'll have a talk that will make you ashamed of your every living moment.

If, on the other hand, there is a Hell.... you're going to burn.

... While I watch... and roast hot-dogs over you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 07:37 AM

32. In 12500 BC, even the ice was smart enough to withdraw from Chicongo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 01:37 AM

60. A CHART!?!

 

Oh, wow, that proves EVERYTHING! A CHART!

Hey everybody, look! It's a CHART!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ursus Magnus (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 09:37 AM

61. Like they know what the temperature of the earth was 22,500 years ago

These people crack me up.

The really funny part is a degree F is not a unit of heat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #61)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:33 PM

63. Honestly why don't you

publish in geophysical letters if you think you are so right and the entire planet's climate scientists are so wrong?

Are you contentending that the WORLD'S CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE 7th GRADE SCIENCE? That is what your post appears to imply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #63)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:38 PM

64. That does appear to be so

I bet you don't know that a degree F is not a unit of heat either, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 02:18 AM

82. They're pushing a totalitarian leftist agenda.

 

It's ALL about control. As a boney lover I don't excpect you to be able to realize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ursus Magnus (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 08:44 AM

83. They are liberals

And liberals are all about controlling others and telling them what to do.

Like the GEICO commercials say - It's what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ursus Magnus (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 08:57 AM

84. So 98% or more

of the WORLD'S climate scientists are pushing the left liberal agenda? Do you honestly believe that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #84)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 09:27 PM

85. Nope

Not at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 03:25 PM

86. Do palm trees grow in the arctic boreal forests?

No. So just from that we can see one way in which temperatures can be inferred. Using several such methods a reasonable range can be established. Couple that with isotopic composition of air and sediments and we can get a pretty good idea of what the average temperature was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #86)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 07:47 PM

87. What was the average temperature since you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 07:58 PM

88. When?

If you mean 22,500 years ago, then the answer is a couple of degreesC below zero.

Now, what makes you think that that is important?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 08:35 PM

89. Gee, the average temperature of the earth 22,000 years ago was a couple of degrees below zero?

Based on how many samples and where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 08:39 PM

90. Many and all over

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 08:52 PM

91. Well, the first linked article had nothing to do with the average temperature of the earth

I'm going to take a stab at it and say none of them do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 08:55 PM

92. You poor thing

No wonder you're confused. And no wonder you want others to do your homework. Well, if you're too lazy to look at actual science, you're doomed to ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #92)

Fri Jan 20, 2017, 12:24 AM

93. You are just like the rest

You can't have a civil conversation without name calling and insults.

It is what you people result to when you have nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:30 PM

62. They clearly demonstrate that they

can't even read a simple chart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #62)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:39 PM

65. There you go again

Belittling others when you can't even use common sense, let alone sound science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #65)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 01:06 PM

66. Your post is an exactly the same level of belittlement

apparently when people don't understand science and can't grasp the simplist explainations it isn't ok to say so but if someone dares to question and their inability to understand simple science then it is ok to belittle them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #66)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 01:40 PM

67. Blah Blah Blah

You haven't answered a single question but your arrogance is never ending

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #67)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:14 PM

68. I've answered every question you've asked

that had any meaning. The problem is that you so misunderstand the science that you ask meanless questions designed to belittle me. I won't answer those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #68)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:21 PM

69. So asking you "what makes up heat in air?"

and "is a degree F a unit of heat?" is belittling you.

Got it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #69)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 03:46 AM

70. Yes

because it is a 10th grade science question. You assume that I don't understand the difference between heat and temperature but you would be dead wrong.

You are not here to discuss science. If you have a scientific point, why don't you just make it? Instead, you are only trying to protect yourself by sidetracking the issue as the direction of this thread clearly shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #70)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 06:34 AM

71. My point is you come to this forum to ridicule people

And you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It's obvious. By your own admission you can't answer 10th grade questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #71)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 11:17 AM

72. I claim exactly

the same for you. By the way, I know that I know what I am talking about and I have significant evidence to back that up. But I really don't care to share it with you.

I will be putting you on ignore after the election. Good day to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #72)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 12:12 AM

74. Cowards put people on ignore

You will because you are tired of being asked questions you can't answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #74)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 11:27 AM

75. Guess what?

I don't care. You have proven you are not worth my time and trouble. You claim I can't answer your questions because I don't know. I claim that I DON'T answer your questions because they are designed to insult me. I have the credentials to prove that I know. I hold a Ph.D. in physics from a well respected United States University.

Go Figure....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 12:18 PM

76. More proof how useless some college degrees can be if you are telling the truth

But I really think you are a liar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #76)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 02:26 PM

77. Like I said it doesn't matter at all

because as you demonstrate clearly the reason you are answering my posts is to ridicule and make fun of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #77)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 02:50 PM

78. Actually I feel sorry for you

and all others like you that are so blinded by your left-wing politics that you abandon common sense and sound reasoning.

You won't answer simple questions on science not only because you can't but because you are afraid the discussion will lead to proof of how wrong you are.

Truth terrifies you. You are scared you might learn something that shatters your faith in your religion that you call global warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #78)

Wed Nov 2, 2016, 05:44 PM

79. Dream on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescienceclimatedeniersobliviousignorantfoolishbrainwashedfacts