Climate Frauds Debunked; 112° in the Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Didn't

Where is the link to the “enhanced CO2 Hypothesis”

LINK please

Again and again you have claimed to use the “scientific method”, well that starts with precise definition of concepts

 

All of this information has all been provided.

 

I doubt it because I cannot find it in any search. Considering there does not appear to a an “enhanced CO2 hypothesis” how can the information about same have been provided? I provided not one but two links to sites which may have been what you were alleging and you ignored them. You explanations so far appear contradictory so where is this hypothesis laid out?

 

I and others have provided all this information.

 

This board will show up on a search and nothing has shown up matching the “Enhanced CO2 Hypothesis”.

 

Perhaps questions and thoughtful engagement would produce a better result than insults.

 

Thoughtful engagement requires knowledge and at least basic understanding of it for it to work.

 

I live in hope.

 

Is the bolded a scientific term?

 

The latest face plant is the end of the world when temperature exceeded 1.5C above the preindustrial level. Nobody noticed.

 

It's a hoax, right? RIGHT?

https://wmo.int/media/news/global-t...s-climate-change-makes-heatwaves-more-extreme

 

How does a temperature increase in 0.03 degrees Centigrade result in what is claimed?

 

Your post was a waste of time because no one here is disputing the warming trend and that it is an anomaly chart which isn't a true datapoint and heatwaves are not more extreme another fantasy from the people who are pushing the stupid AGW scam since 95% of CO2 warm forcing was already done at least 600 MILLION years ago thus contributes little after that.

 

1) You are orders of magnitude less likely to die from a climate related disaster than your grandparents were.

2) Coastal land mass is increasing—continentally as well as in island chains like Kiribati

3) You are less likely to die of direct effects of exposure to suboptimal temperatures than your parents and grandparents

4) You are forced to live on a planet where agricultural output and output potential are increasing

5) You are paying less as a percentage of GDP to ameliorate the effects of climate related disasters than ever before

6) You have to listen to climate nutters go on about how rotten life has become on earth.

 

You're in denial with a few other deniers.

 

Isn't it interesting that in the 1970s oil company scientists were warning about global warming and the coming disasters that we are now, 50 years later, seeing?

 

See post 116 above.

 

What disasters?

Global warming is beneficial.

 

LOL, you didn't counter anything I posted also that it is true that no one here denies it is warming Anomaly charts are not real data at all a reality that is so obvious to all, but the usual warmist/alarmist cultist and CO2 warm forcing is mostly in the first 60 ppm with a rapid drop off afterwards which is standard 101 stuff, yet YOU are denying it.

 

The disasters you claim are all in your head since it isn't unusual occurrence and with a decline in Tornadoes, Hurricanes and decrease in Tropical storm action and decline in wildfires too.

Death rate for weather related activities today is the lowest of the last 100 years.

 

Actually, in the 1970's global cooling was at least as much a concern as global warming. Later, Exxon scientists were partners with the IPCC in researching the possibility of global warming. There was no "warning" from the IPCC until 1995. All Exxon's research was published or otherwise shared with the IPCC.

 

Not really. It’s pretty basic stuff. What’s more interesting is your strawman and inability to address my content directly.

 

Mainstream support from Reid Bryson and his pals, the founders of the denier movement.

Like I said, your side has been failing for a long time, continuing to the present time. And you're trying to suppress that record of failure.

 

Like NASA and Columbia University.


U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming

 

So now you're saying that the opinion of one man represents the opinion of the whole institution? Really?

The authors of that paper quickly realized they'd gotten several things wrong, and they retracted the paper in 1974. So, you just gave us an example of good climate science winning out in the end, and honest scientists admitting to a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist)
---
The story made headlines in The New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.[7]
---