It seems like a lot of people are confused about "global warming"

[Dick Buffman]

Nobody is disputing the source of the heat. What is disputed is the cause of the fluctuation and in particular the fluctuation upwards.

Yes they are. They're attributing it to co2.

The fluctuation has to do with sunspot activity. My diagram proves this.

Higher activity=Medieval Warm Period
Lower activity=Little Ice age...

http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/...t_history.html

[Xyei]

Where do you get your data that temps are ****ing upward? Just a quesrion. Where I live, we have not had one day in the 90's since the start of this year. The longest such an occurance sine the 1880's.

We must have gotten your weather. Last week we had a couple of 94 degree days which is unheard of in VT in May. 94 degrees is about as hot as it gets around here throughout the whole summer.

[Dick Buffman]

I think the good folks at MIT should give me an honorary science degree for my excellent drawing.

If they don't, it will be worse than when Funeka got robbed against Guzman in that first fight.

[squealpiggy]

Yes they are. They're attributing it to co2.

The fluctuation has to do with sunspot activity. My diagram proves this.

Higher activity=Medieval Warm Period
Lower activity=Little Ice age...

http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/...t_history.html

Recent sunspot activity does not account for recent rises in temperature. Your hypothesis was rejected in peer review.

[Dick Buffman]

Recent sunspot activity does not account for recent rises in temperature. Your hypothesis was rejected in peer review.

Those guys cherry pick data. They've been compromised by the green lobby, therefore making any of their "peer reviews" irrelevant.

For every scientist who believes co2 is harmful, there's 5 that disagree. Just because 1 group thinks so, doesn't make it a consensus, or much less true.

[TheJoker]

Those guys cherry pick data. They've been compromised by the green lobby, therefore making any of their "peer reviews" irrelevant.

For every scientist who believes co2 is harmful, there's 5 that disagree. Just because 1 group thinks so, doesn't make it a consensus, or much less true.

Who ever said CO2 is "harmful"?

How about naming some of those scientists? How about naming just 5 and what work they have done which refutes global warming? I'll start you off:

John Christy: B.A. in Mathematics (1973) from the California State University, Fresno, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences (1984, 1987) from the University of Illinois

Richard Lindzen: A.B. in Physics (1960), S.M. in Applied Mathematics (1961), Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics (1964) all from Harvard

Patrick Michaels: Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

Roy Spencer: B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan (1978), M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison (1980 and 1982).

Go ahead and name ONE serious climatologist researcher who has contributed to the field... ONE

[Dick Buffman]

Who ever said CO2 is "harmful"?

How about naming some of those scientists? How about naming just 5 and what work they have done which refutes global warming? I'll start you off:

John Christy: B.A. in Mathematics (1973) from the California State University, Fresno, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences (1984, 1987) from the University of Illinois

Richard Lindzen: A.B. in Physics (1960), S.M. in Applied Mathematics (1961), Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics (1964) all from Harvard

Patrick Michaels: Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

Roy Spencer: B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan (1978), M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison (1980 and 1982).

Go ahead and name ONE serious climatologist researcher who has contributed to the field... ONE

They're saying co2 is the reason the climate is rising. Thats the whole theory behind global warming. The rest of your post is a bunch of horse**** as usual. You throw up a bunch of names and useless links that got no merit or weight behind them.

Math majors ?? LOL... Good one.

And a degree in atmospheric science is about as useful as getting a liberal arts degree.

My drawing>>> All those "scientists".

If I ever met those guys I'd kick them in the ****ing nuts for being douchebags.

[TheJoker]

They're saying co2 is the reason the climate is rising. Thats the whole theory behind global warming. The rest of your post is a bunch of horse**** as usual. You throw up a bunch of names and useless links that got no merit or weight behind them.

Math majors ?? LOL... Good one.

And a degree in atmospheric science is about as useful as getting a liberal arts degree.

My drawing>>> All those "scientists".

If I ever met those guys I'd kick them in the ****ing nuts for being douchebags.

Yea, as much as I expected... Those "math majors" hold degrees in Physics, Atmospheric Sciences and Climatology... What horse****...

As for the "harmful" part, it's the amount that is driving the change, not the actual gas that is "harmful"... Saying CO2 is harmful is like saying water is harmful because it causes drowning, moron.

I'll wait till you can come up with just one simple name...

[roxy]

I find global warming confusing, a bunch of scientist do gooders say we are messing up the planet and it is showing, and then a bunch of powerful corperations hire a bunch of other scientists to say they are wrong and everythings fine. I don't know who to believe.

[Dick Buffman]

Yea, as much as I expected... Those "math majors" hold degrees in Physics, Atmospheric Sciences and Climatology... What horse****...

As for the "harmful" part, it's the amount that is driving the change, not the actual gas that is "harmful"... Saying CO2 is harmful is like saying water is harmful because it causes drowning, moron.

I'll wait till you can come up with just one simple name...

Right. So too much co2 is harmful, even though co2 is not harmful.



Thank you.

Thats like saying, I could overdose on placebos. Here's a guy btw... and there's thousands more like him who's names I won't bother looking up cuz' I feel like it. Especially in light of the fact that I already contributed my excellent diagram.

I'm sure these aren't "real" scientists though, since real scientists believe co2 is driving climate change and believe we should be taxed for exhaling it and also believe we should do away with any industry.

Have you heard of Malthus? This "climate science" is nothing new. Its already been done under the guise of limits to growth theory. "Climate change" is just a new label to serve the same ends.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...gwpetition.htm