Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

Now that onalandline has made his case by cartoon, we all eagerly await Hoosier8's condemnation.

 

the percentage isnt important in this case because Co2 accumulates...a natural increase of 100ppm should normally take between 5000 to 20000yrs, we've accomplished that in 120 years...and the amount seems small be that's an illusion and you imply to small to have an effect, volcanic emissions from mt pinatubo had no problems lowering global temps and no one disputes that even though anthropogenic emissions dwarf mt pinatubo emissions every year...it defies logic for you to claim co2 emissions are too small to affect temp while no one disputes the cooling ability of a much smaller volcanic event to do so...

 

So there are no natural sources of CO2?

Yeah, it has been so hot...not.

[video=youtube;afBRwugJFKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBRwugJFKM[/video]

Subject to debate.

Subject to debate.

I am not an alarmist.

 

Case not closed. What a bunch of BS. You're full of (*)(*)(*)(*). You're an alarmist.

 

[video]http://www.infowars.com/riding-the-train-of-climate-change/[/video]

 

"Global cooling" and possible ice age of the 1970's, then there was "global warming" of the 1990's, and now it is just "climate change" because the alarmists cannot make up their minds. What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing joke. The narrative is not working.

 

No there was not - now we are down to rubbish responses

 

stupid people can make videos!...who would've guessed that was possible...

 

gullible...

 

The answer to your question is situation specific because its in a open system.

The relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing is logarithmic.

 

Global cooling of the 1970's: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17032

- - - Updated - - -

True. Al Gore had an entire movie years ago.

 

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17032

- - - Updated - - -

This does nothing to prove that. Which comes first? Opinions are on both sides.

 

Simplistic cartoon videos and obvious flaws presented on it are enough for me. Evidently you don't understand that nothing is written in stone.

 

I guess you didn't understand a word you read.
Logical fallacy: Argument from (personal) incredulity

 

"so-called"? Are you suggesting that the information in my link is not credible?!

 

Oh, that's a very convincing rebuttal. So where do you think all that burned fossil carbon went? Did you just wave your magic wand and make it disappear?

 

Sure there are. Just like there are natural sinks for CO2. But the natural sinks are equal to the natural sources, so the net effect from nature is zero.

While the net effect from us is hugely, grossly out of balance.

Linear regression is now "subject to debate"? Well then by all means, debate it. I can hardly wait to destroy yet another idiotic denier argument. Please, please debate this. Or you could just admit that you're wrong.

Or you could refuse to debate, which is the same as an admission that you're wrong. Either way, I win.

 

There is no word for the level of gullibilty and naivete you've achieved....I recall the 70s very well, it bs ...

 

which reveals your denialism is politcally motivated not based on science or logic.....and now please show us where someone has linked to a Gore video as evidence of agw? ?...nope, it's only only deniers with little or no understanding of science who link to non experts who are politically motivated or conspiracy nuts....

 

Or he'll post a link to another video conspiracy/political/psuedoscience website thinking they're experts and know more than he does...

 

Well it's entirely possible that they in fact do know more than he does. But that's a pretty low bar.

I'm still waiting for a denier who can fight his own battles and think for himself. Still waiting. Still waiting ...

 

I've already addressed "minuscule amount" argument. So where are you going to believe: A skeptical climate change researcher such as Spencer or Lindzen or a cartoon?
Onalandline, can you explain what is causing the "natural temperature variations? Because the cartoon certainly didn't.


Your turn. Show me information in my link is misleading.

 

The physical properties of CO2 give it a relationship with temperature. And this is not opinion; instead, its quantum physics.

As for what can come first CO2 or temperature, it depends since more things than CO2 can increase temperature. In fact, CO2 doesn't come first at the end of ice ages; instead, it needs a kickstart from some other process like orbital forcing because CO2 is contained in temperature sensitive sinks. So it takes an increase of temperature before those sinks will respond. In our current situation, humans are removing CO2 from some sinks and pumping it into the atmosphere.

 

Did he studder?

 

"No, the world ISN’T getting warmer"

Wait a minute! Didn't your cartoon say it was getting warmer due to "natural variations" and that increase in temps due to "natural variations" and that outgassing, not humans, is leading to an increase in CO2??? If Jones is right (Really? Alec (prisonplanet) Jones/) and there is no warming, what's causing an increase in CO2?

So which is it onalandline? Are we getting warmer or not?