Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

a reply to: jrod

I keep repeating the 40% rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution

Apparently false. The actual figure is 142%.

The latest analysis of observations from the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch Programme shows that the globally averaged mole fractions of CO2, CH4 and N2O reached new highs in 2013, with CO2 at 396.0±0.1 ppm[2], CH4 at 1824±2 ppb[3] and N2O at 325.9±0.1 ppb. These values constitute, respectively, 142%, 253% and 121% of pre-industrial (before 1750) levels.

www.wmo.int...

a reply to: Phage

142% of preindustrial levels (meaning original * 142 / 100) is a 42% increase.

The natural greenhouse effect from the presence of the atmosphere of course keeps the climate suitable for life to begin with. Hypothetically without the radiative forcing from the atmosphere (even without humans) all the ocean surfaces would freeze over and glaciers would cover nearly all the landmass. With the high albedo the temperature would be 30C less and globally be like Antarctica, with the only life being meagre microbes near volcanic outputs.

please delete, system made duplicate post

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

where? when? How much?

All of the data? All over the globe? Every source? For all time since the 1960's? Oceans too? No way.

Remember the skeptical Berkeley statistician who didn't trust the climatologists data reduction? He and his students & researchers spent years re-analyzing all the raw data they could find and re-assimilated, cleaned, adjusted and confirmed with the best methods he thought were appropriate.

The end result: the consensus climatology record was correct. The Berkeley re-analysis showed very slightly higher warming.

There is no conspiracy. There can't be, nobody could possibly arrange it. This is a phenomenon of known physics, and is directly experimentally measured. Why do people continue to aggressively embrace ignorance because they don't like the political implications of the outcome? It's childish and dangerous.

a reply to: jrod

You keep making these claims... Like a similar claim in another thread in which first you claim to have a PHd, and then on the next page you say "I never wrote that"... Or the fact that in that same thread you first claim not to believe the AGW claim, and then you change your mind and back the AGW claims...

You are the one making only false claims, and changing your mind. You also NEVER seem able to admit when you are wrong, or even accept that you made an error. BTW, it is not even the first time you have done this. In other threads other members of ATS also have noticed how you try to claim to have a PHd, and then you go back and claim not to have one and that no one should expect you to have "a PHd level of understanding".

Which btw, you don't really need to have a PHd to make a reasonable argument. The fact is that you jrod NEVER make a reasonable or intelligent argument. Your arguments normally just continue to be "it has been a 40% increase and that is the proof"... When that is not so because a change of next to nothing to an small increase of next to nothing is still negligible in the grand scheme of things.

AGAIN, an increase of CO2 from NEXT TO ZERO or 0.036% of all atmospheric gases to NEXT TO ZERO or supposedly 0.039% increase is still NEGLEGIBLE...

And then again we are not even taking in consideration as to exactly how much of the increase has been anthropogenic, and how much has been natural. You, and others like you just seem to love to make believe other members of ATS that the increase has only been because of mankind, and this is not true.

The AGW claim revolves around the claim that "CO2" is the gas that has caused global warming, when water vapor is 10 times more potent than CO2 molecule by molecule and it exists in larger levels from about 1% at the poles to about 4% in the tropics.

Water Vapor is the main greenhouse gas responsible for helping warm planets during warming periods, and keeping them warmer. The radiative effect of CO2 is MINIMAL, and an increase from 0.036% to 0.039% of all atmospheric gases CANNOT be responsible for the warming.

BTW, just a question to all those members who keep trying to back the AGW claim. Was the raw data deleted or wasn't it?... Weren't the most prominent AGW scientist proponents caught time and again lying, and fabricating data, and even pushing FALSE information to put political pressure or not?...

BTW, if you are going to claim they didn't lie, you need to post evidence. Actual facts, and not "opinion and rumors".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


| Water Vapor is the main greenhouse gas responsible for helping warm planets during warming periods, and keeping them warmer. The radiative effect of CO2 is MINIMAL, and an increase from 0.036% to 0.039% of all atmospheric gases CANNOT be responsible for the warming.

The fraction of atmospheric gases is irrelevant, it's the fraction of radiative forcing which matters and if the bulk of nitrogen & oxygen contributes little, what remains is important.

The physics of the radiative forcing has been studied and known quantitatively in detail for decades. It is an observed fact that CO2 can be significant in radiative forcing.

www.realclimate.org...

www.realclimate.org...

Water vapor is also important but it is in statistical equilibrium with oceans and so is a feedback (changing magnitude of other forcings) not an extternal forcing directly.

www.realclimate.org...

If the air is warmer, then on average the you get more water vapor in the atmosphere in rough equilibrium and that contributes to more warming.

It turns out that other gases even rarer than CO2 also have substantial greenhouse forcing as well.
www.realclimate.org...

There are plenty of other cases where much smaller concentrations of chemicals have profound effects. Want to ingest some arsenic?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
BTW, just a question to all those members who keep trying to back the AGW claim. Was the raw data deleted or wasn't it?...

No, as I outlined here: ATS post

Weren't the most prominent AGW scientist proponents caught time and again lying, and fabricating data, and even pushing FALSE information to put political pressure or not?...

No.

Eight...Separate...I nvestigations...Turned...Up...Nothi ng

Ran out of words, but you get the idea: Climate-Change Scientist Cleared in Closing of U.S. Data-Altering Inquiry

BTW, if you are going to claim they didn't lie, you need to post evidence. Actual facts, and not "opinion and rumors".

Add some more 'liars' and I'll see if they've been investigated.

a reply to: Phage

That is certainly interesting.

I have always gone by the 280ppm to 400pm numbers. I'll have to take a good look at that study.

It also should be noted that as CO2 levels go up, O2 levels go down. Right now CO2 levels are so low that is barely touches our O2 concentration , however if these numbers are correct we could be seeing a runaway effect going on. If this is case then we may start seeing dropping significant O2 levels much sooner(though likely not in our lifetimes).

The CH4 levels, that is where things really get tricky.

I sincerely hope that this post isn't removed for one of the various usual reasons. (No criticism intended.)

As someone who was blessed to grow up in the period when the true "Family Farm" still existed (that belies our dad working at ALCOA to keep the checkbook balanced), I find some of what I've read both amusing but irritating.

How many "Experts" does it take to change a light-bulb? The answer is: I don't care I know how to do it myself.

The reality is that Reality doesn't give a rat's sphincter of how many letters you can put behind your name. A guy that was a regular on a board I used to frequent couldn't resist including his credentials in his username. I have much more respect for a simple man who knows what he is talking about than I do a man who pummels those who don't agree with him by listing the notches in his belt as far as the education machine. Doctrine will never equate to hands on knowledge.

There is an old story about a Ph. D that had a flat tire next to a mental institution.

The professor methodically lifted his car on the jack and took off all four lugs on the wheel but fumbled on the last as he set it in the hubcap and one rolled down the gutter and into the grate before he could catch it.

One of the "guests" at said institution had been watching from the shade of a tree and suggested through the fence that the professor could take one lug off the remaining three tires and that would get him, at least, to a service station.

The blank look followed by a moment of enlightenment was met with, "Hey, I might be nuts but I ain't STUPID!"

Sadly, life has meant that Man increasingly lives farther from the Land. Factory farms and modern methods don't get a lot of sympathy from me. Our dad didn't want us locked to the farm and I'm not, though I wish I didn't live in town.

There are times when all the "Book Learning" in the world can't compete with a real farmer can do with a walk along the fences, a look around and crumbling some soil in his hand.

AGW=MONEY. Call me stupid but change your own tire...

a reply to: mbkennel

First of all, Real climate is the website where Michael Mann, the maker of the Hockey Stick Hoax, is one of it's director's with Gavin Schmidt. Two of the main proponents of the AGW hoax, and two of the people who have been caught lying, publishing false data, and doing their best not to publish real data and even trying to label any scientist who disagree with them as "science deniers", like some other people try to do...

Then we could also talk about the fact that Real Climate is linked to Al Gore through Arlie Schardt who is the founder of Environmental Media Services (EMS). Arlie Schardt used to be Al Gore's press secretary. Through EMS Arlie Schardt provided web hosting and support to RealClimate.Org.

Environmental Media Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues".[1] EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate,[2] and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregation service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications (where they shared the same office space and personnel),[3][4] "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[5] which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues.

As of December 31, 2005, Environmental Media Services ceased to function as an independent organization and merged with Science Communication Network.
...

en.wikipedia.org...


The RealClimate site even mentions Al Gore and his fallacious movie " an unconvinient truth" as "an attempt by Al Gore to educate the public"... Of course they don't mention the fact that Al Gore tried to trick people by showing graphs which "appear' to correlate CO2 levels with temperatures, but neither Gore nor the "scientists' from RealClimate.org explain that your eyes can trick you, and most people won't realize that CO2 LAGS behind the temperature data in those graphs shown by Al Gore... The average lag of CO2 behind temperature in those graphs shown by Al Gore is 800 years...

Second of all, how about you try to define this equilibrium you are talking about the oceans and water vapor that would negate the fact that water vapor content in an atmosphere like Earth's increases naturally during warming cycles? In such warming cycles, such as the Earth has been undergoing since the 1600s, the atmosphere is able to contain more water vapor in a feedback loop by which water vapor is the main GHG that contributes to more warming which causes the atmosphere to be able to contain more water vapor, and so on. This warming has been erroneously given by the AGW crowd to CO2. But water vapor did not start the warming cycle, and neither did CO2 since the warming started in the 1600s, almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution.

BTW, you can't claim that CO2 acts similar to arsenic... You are out of your freaking mind... CO2 is actually NEEDED BY LIFE... Arsenic is not... So there goes your fallacious analogy...

a reply to: links234

Wow... really, so let me get this straight... investigations done by the very same agencies that have been involved in the scandals, such as CRU, alongside investigations into the scandal done by groups that have been calling for "a need to combat climate change and to implement a world government which will combat it" and of course people like links234 do not question such "findings"...

Then again one has to wonder how many millions of dollars in funding would entities such as the University of East Anglia have lost if they have admitted to wrongdoing on the part of their employees, such as Mann...

As Patrick Michaels points out, the investigations were not exactly as “independent” as they have been labeled:


Last week “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia.

Further:


One of the [investigative] panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

Michaels also points out that the institutions performing two earlier investigations—the University of East Anglia itself, and Penn State University into its employee Michael Mann—stood to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for global warming research had any wrong-doing been found.

The BBC’s Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin also reports questions about the independence of the investigations, which you can hear here.

But, motivations aside, just how rigorous was this “independent” investigation that has now “vindicated” the scientists involved?

As background for those who might have forgotten who the players are, last November, an unknown party known only as “FOI” (Freedom of Information) posted to a website thousands of emails and other documents among key scientists, all champions of anthropogenic global warming and involved in the UN panel creating its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report. The key players involved were Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), Keith Briffa, a climatologist at CRU and IPCC author, and Michael Mann (of “Hockey Stick” infamy) at Penn State University. Phil Jones stepped aside as director at CRU pending the investigation’s findings, and is now set to return, though with a slightly different title.

The most serious evidence the hacked emails had revealed was of Keith Briffa colluding with a colleague of Mann’s to change the published IPCC assessment of the Hockey Stick dispute from that which had been sent to external reviewers to one that favored Mann and his colleagues, creators of the Hockey Stick—rather a direct contradiction of the fabled “peer review” process. These were the email exchanges about the IPCC report (AR4) that Phil Jones exhorted all to delete (see #2, below).

Other of the more damning emails involved are also outlined below.

As extremely well documented in Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog, the investigation, headed up by Sir Muir Russell, only interviewed representatives of the CRU itself—hardly a balanced investigation—and Russell himself did not even attend the interviews of Jones, Briffa and other key players (“Muir Russell Skipped Jones Interviews“).
...

Link

Then again, we also have other examples of how these scientists, such as Phil Jones have been lying for so many years...

HIDE• THE• DECLINE“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil Jones
...

hidethedecline.eu...

Not to mention that the email themselves show how deep the rabbit hole went on who had been among the people responsible for hiding the data and colluding to hide the data and publish false information to push a political agenda.

...
1) Hide data requested by outsiders.
Phil Jones to Mike Mann:


The two MMs [probably Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Phil Jones to Gavin Schmidt (Climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies):


All our FOI [Freedom of Information] officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond—advice they got from the Information Commissioner. ...

The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this.

2) Delete emails and lie about their back conversations on rewriting the IPCC report.
]Phil Jones to Mike Mann:


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC report]? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment—minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise Cheers, Phil.
...

Link

Then there is the fact that CRU also deleted the raw temperature data... but according to links234, there was nothing wrong going on... lol

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: jrod

You keep making these claims... Like a similar claim in another thread in which first you claim to have a PHd, and then on the next page you say "I never wrote that"... Or the fact that in that same thread you first claim not to believe the AGW claim, and then you change your mind and back the AGW claims...

I never once posted on ATS that I have a PHD, I cited several PHDs at FIT who could back up these crazy science claims I keep posting. Misquoting is a tactic straight from the book of deception.


Keep it up Mr. Strawman!

originally posted by: jrod


I never once posted on ATS that I have a PHD, I cited several PHDs at FIT who could back up these crazy science claims I keep posting. Misquoting is a tactic straight from the book of deception.


Keep it up Mr. Strawman!

edit on 11-9-2014 by jrod because: it never ends with ElectricUniverse

hum...

originally posted by: jrod

...
For the record: never have I claimed to have a PHD, I cited Dr. Windsor a PHD who taught an atmospheric chemistry class at Florida Institute of Technology in 2003

Please kindly do not misrepresent what I write, it takes away from your credibility.

Really?... When in the page before you posted, and I quote...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr Lazarus is still at FIT. He can verify that Dr. Windsor was indeed there in 2003, and I indeed was enrolled there. Ask Sallie Mae.

my.fit.edu...

There is an email address somewhere on that site or one of the sub-pages to Dr. Lazarus. Proof that I have a genuine PHD to back my claims up.

Wow...just wow...

What about claiming first that you don't believe in AGW, and then actually backing the AGW claims, are you also going to deny that?...

originally posted by: jrod
I do believe global warming is a hoax too, It is a propaganda campaign. It can not be either proved or disproved in our short life times. While there does appear to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2, this is by no means proves global warming.


...

The above can be found at the top of page 24 in the following link

But we all know your continuous attempts at claiming "CO2 must be culled' do not agree with the AGW claims right?...

Sometimes I think that you Jrod have arguments with yourself every day of the week for 24 hours a day because you keep contradicting yourself and keep repeating the same lies day in and day out.

You can never provide any proof in specific to ANY of the claims you make. You claim other members "use pseudo-science" when it is you who keeps doing what you proclaim other members do...

Oh and btw, stop sending me whispers claiming that you are a scientist. We all can see you are nothing even close to being a scientist, or making other wild claims such as...

private message

I AM a scientist!


from: jrod

You are a phoney!!

Get over it, ATS is full of intelligent people that will not be fooled by your attempt at deception.

If I wasn't right, then you would not have the NEED for the personal attacks against me in your posts.

That is poor etiquette and only makes you look foolish.

It's getting tiresome. Next whisper I get from you and I will send all the whispers you have been sending me to the staff.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


CO2 is less than .1% of the atmosphere, and only a fraction of the radiation reemitted by CO2 would come back to the Earth. Radiative forcing with a fraction of less than 1/4th of less than .1% of ambient temperature is like trying to heat a swimming pool or a house with safety matches.

You’re not understanding the physics correctly, that’s why you’re coming up with the wrong conclusion.

I have no idea what your educational level is, so please forgive me if I cover material you already know. First, all the monoatomic gases of the atmosphere (Neon, Helium, Argon, Krypton) and all the diatomic gases (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen) of the atmosphere are not electrically polar, to any appreciable degree. Therefore they can’t readily absorb thermal IR. That’s why—even though they make up more than 99% of the molecules of the Earth’s atmosphere—they absorb a negligible amount of the thermal IR emitted back from the Earth’s surface. A gas molecule has to be triatomic or greater (CO2, H2O, CH4) in order to be an effective thermal IR absorber. That’s why the greenhouse effect is so sensitive to those trace gases—they are the only ones that count.

So what happens AFTER a CO2 molecule (or H2O, or CH4, etc.) has absorbed a thermal IR photon traveling upward from the Earth’s surface? You seem to be assuming that it then immediately re-emits the radiation, and for that reason you can’t understand how this could possibly contribute to atmospheric warming.

If that’s what happened, you would be right—but that’s not what happens. The energy absorbed into a polyatomic gas molecule from thermal IR photons goes into vibrational kinetic energy of the molecule (but does not directly change its translational velocity). Such a molecule is in an excited state, which is not energetically stable for an indefinite period of time. If such a molecule were isolated in free space, it would spontaneously transition back to the ground state by re-emitting the photon. The time constant for decay back down to the original energy state is about 1 nanosecond.

However, in a body of gas, the molecules are moving around with a substantial translational velocity and bumping into each other all the time. In the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, the mean time interval for collisions between gas molecules is around 1/5 of a nanosecond, so you can see that after 1 nanosecond, the originally excited molecule would have undergone multiple collisions. Every time a collision occurs, the total kinetic energy of the two molecules is reapportioned between the two and the kinetic energy can show up in either vibrational, rotational, or translational modes. In stochastic physics this process is called equipartition of energy. Most of those collisions would be with Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules which would go on to collide with their neighbors which collide with their neighbors, and so on. Within a fraction of a second, the vibrational energy of the CO2 molecule-- which came from the thermal IR photon--has been distributed evenly into the surrounding air molecules by simple thermodynamics.

The net result is that all the gas molecules that participate in collisions have their mean velocity speeded up a little bit. Increasing the mean speed of molecules in a gas is the same as increasing the temperature of the gas. Of course, molecules colliding at thermal speeds become activated by the collision and can then emit electromagnetic radiation themselves as a result. The process of emission does not depend on the molecules being polar, so N2 and O2 can participate in this process quite readily. The faster the speed of collisions, the more energy is emitted by the activated molecules. So, as the mean speed of gas molecules goes up and the gas temperature goes up, more energy is emitted by collisions per unit time. When the amount of power emitted by collisions between all the molecules in the gas equals the amount of power absorbed by the polyatomic molecules, the system is in equilibrium and it does not get any hotter.

In summary, only the polar, polyatomic molecular species participate in the direct absorption of thermal IR, but ALL the molecular species participate in re-emission of the energy that arrived from that source, after it has been redistributed through collisions.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: jrod


I never once posted on ATS that I have a PHD, I cited several PHDs at FIT who could back up these crazy science claims I keep posting. Misquoting is a tactic straight from the book of deception.


Keep it up Mr. Strawman!

edit on 11-9-2014 by jrod because: it never ends with ElectricUniverse

hum...

originally posted by: jrod

...
For the record: never have I claimed to have a PHD, I cited Dr. Windsor a PHD who taught an atmospheric chemistry class at Florida Institute of Technology in 2003

Please kindly do not misrepresent what I write, it takes away from your credibility.

Really?... When in the page before you posted, and I quote...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr Lazarus is still at FIT. He can verify that Dr. Windsor was indeed there in 2003, and I indeed was enrolled there. Ask Sallie Mae.

my.fit.edu...

There is an email address somewhere on that site or one of the sub-pages to Dr. Lazarus. Proof that I have a genuine PHD to back my claims up.

Wow...just wow...

What about claiming first that you don't believe in AGW, and then actually backing the AGW claims, are you also going to deny that?...

originally posted by: jrod
I do believe global warming is a hoax too, It is a propaganda campaign. It can not be either proved or disproved in our short life times. While there does appear to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2, this is by no means proves global warming.


...

The above can be found at the top of page 24 in the following link

But we all know your continuous attempts at claiming "CO2 must be culled' do not agree with the AGW claims right?...

Sometimes I think that you Jrod have arguments with yourself every day of the week for 24 hours a day because you keep contradicting yourself and keep repeating the same lies day in and day out.

You can never provide any proof in specific to ANY of the claims you make. You claim other members "use pseudo-science" when it is you who keeps doing what you proclaim other members do...

Oh and btw, stop sending me whispers claiming that you are a scientist. We all can see you are nothing even close to being a scientist, or making other wild claims such as...

private message

I AM a scientist!


from: jrod

You are a phoney!!

Get over it, ATS is full of intelligent people that will not be fooled by your attempt at deception.

If I wasn't right, then you would not have the NEED for the personal attacks against me in your posts.

That is poor etiquette and only makes you look foolish.

It's getting tiresome. Next whisper I get from you and I will send all the whispers you have been sending me to the staff.

That was awesome.





~Namaste

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That is a misquote there buddy!

I was referring to PHDs that I was a student of during my time at FIT.

Keep trying to tear me down.

Don't like message, shoot down the messenger!

I do believe global warming is a hoax too, It is a propaganda campaign. It can not be either proved or disproved in our short life times. While there does appear to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2, this is by no means proves global warming.

Yes. This true. However it appears there may be a warming trend at a result of anthropological activity, more specifically the industrial age. Both CO2 and CH4 cause radiative forcing.

Keep up with your strawman attacks!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That is a misquote there buddy!

That is not a misquote... When you write a sentence saying "I have a PHd to back my claims up" You are stating that YOU have a PHd. That is a statement that denotes personal POSSESSION. YOU can't posses another person's title. In that thread it seems that you were implying that at the website of the PHd you cited people could find proof of your PHd. That's what your statement was implying. Not to mention that even in the U2Us you have sent me you have also claimed on several occasions to be a "scientist" and that "you have a PHd". None of which is true.

originally posted by: jrod
I was referring to PHDs that I was a student of during my time at FIT.

Other members have already tried to tell you that ANYONE can listen to a presentation done by someone who has a PHd, but this alone DOESN'T make you an expert, and it certainly doesn't give you credence.

originally posted by: jrod
Keep trying to tear me down.

Don't like message, shoot down the messenger!

No, my intent is to show that you keep making false accusations, and that you even contradict yourself. NEVER have you provided PROOF to any of your claims. Yet when other members, including myself, post excerpts and links to experts in different fields you can't even provide a reasonable counter argument, all you do is CLAIM "that's pseudo-science, that's not science at all, you are a science denier"... Which only shows the fact that you don't even understand how to make a logical and concise argument.

If you are going to claim that the argument someone else is presenting is not true, or "it's not scientific" you need to EXPLAIN in a logical fashion why you think the argument you are responding to is false... Just proclaiming "that's pseudoscience, it's not science at all, you must be a science denier" is no proof.

originally posted by: jrod
I do believe global warming is a hoax too, It is a propaganda campaign. It can not be either proved or disproved in our short life times. While there does appear to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2, this is by no means proves global warming.

Yes. This true. However it appears there may be a warming trend at a result of anthropological activity, more specifically the industrial age. Both CO2 and CH4 cause radiative forcing.

Keep up with your strawman attacks!

The fact that you can't understand you are contradicting yourself goes a long way in showing that you can't understand logic. The main premise behind AGW is that "anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for the warming and for Climate Change"... On several occasions you have stated "we need to cull CO2 to stop the warming" which is in AGREEMENT with the AGW claim, yet you also claim to not believe in AGW... You can't have both as it is a contradiction...