CO2 alarmism is not logical by kilo54

Introduce Yourself
81

If the “Noble?” Mark were not so interested in celebrating his own hubris, he might have responded to the explanation site, that I posted for him that explains why our atmosphere is not remotely saturated with CO2, hence his fossil fuel think tank talking point about CO2 logarithmic BS, is busted. Let’s try again.

"… if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push ‘the action’ higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

The Greenhouse Effect isn’t even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!"

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=82&p=5

 

 

82

Don’t worry Mark, I believe your IQ at 16 could have been 130. That is 2 standard deviations above normal, so quite high, but still, tentatively, believable, if you are sure the test was done by a qualified professional. You may have lost a bit in your old age, but that is natural.

Still, in the context of the current topic, none of us are climate scientists. (On whom we must rely for the bottom line.)

This guy, Dr. James E. Hansen, formerly of NASA, is a climate scientist and has something that he declared about climate change (in the most legal of terms) : http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150812_FINAL_HANSEN_DEC_FOR_US_DISTRICT_OREGON_9pm.pdf

 

83

A few months ago another Brit of some “Nobility” spoke quite differently, than Mark about the danger of climate change and the urgent need for action. He said

"…the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.”

Most of us on this forum are yanks but you may recognize him:

84

America - famous for Coke, infamous for the Koch’s. The Koch’s who have funded Climate Change Denial to the tune of $127 Billion. Maybe the Brits have their own version of the Koch’s. Anyway, check this out, courtesy of Greenpeace:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

 

 

85

(I am waiting for Mark’s reply that trashes the reputation of Dr, James E. Hansen, as that would be a typical strategy of organized climate change denial.)

86

Isn’t that a nice picture of Charles? In my wildest imagination, I never thought I would have to admire a potential King of England, a thousand times more than the current President of the United States.

87

@3point, you are right about IQ tests, it would be a waste for you to get tested. It would be obvious to any casually observing Psychologist (tho they might not say so) that you are AT LEAST average intelligence if not above, not a genius, perhaps, but so few are.

88

C’mon Mark! I’m doing a one man show here. Speak up!

Here’s quotes from another Royal whelp, Prince Harry, a week ago, when he said in support of Greta Thornberg:

721×1024 110 KB
(Harry back during active duty days.)

"This last week, led by Greta, the world’s children are striking. There’s an emergency … it’s a race against time and one which we are losing…

"Everyone knows it. There’s no excuse for not knowing that and the most troubling part of that is that I don’t believe that there’s anybody in this world that can deny science - undeniable science and facts - science and facts that have been around for the last 30, maybe 40, years and it’s only getting stronger and stronger.

“I don’t understand how anyone in this world, whoever we are, you, us, children, leaders, whoever it is, no-one can deny science, otherwise we live in a very, very troubling world.”

960×656 49.3 KB
(Greta and her little sis in more pleasant days.)

Mark Wheatberg’s thoughts on Greta were more disturbing as he said, and I quote: “…I hear Greta making a borno starring AL Bore as a gelded buckold boyeur.”

BTW, Congrats to Greta winning another prize for her activism, and turning down the money, today. (No, Mark, Greta doesn’t have the time or need to be making bornography. You, OTOH, spew out a lot of material that has no redeeming social value.)

89

I would like to point out that I have an IQ of 142 according to the very reputable random website I got that number from nearly 20 years ago. It’s all very scientific and totally, completely accurate, I’m sure. IQ scores are completely scientific, not affected at all by upbringing, environment or wealth at all. Or was that physics? One of those two isn’t affected by social standing in society. I forget which.

Mark, we have all repeatedly pointed out that many of your “facts” are wrong. Literally every one I have bothered to look into was wrong, and I have given evidence to back that up. You get ALL of your information from conservative disinformation sites and IT IS WRONG!

So what, exactly, is it you hope to accomplish here? You’re not trying to convince us. If you were then you’d bother to fact check yourself before posting. And you’re not trying to learn anything. Again with the fact checking. I can only conclude that your purpose here is nefarious. You are either A) a pawn of the fossil fuel industry working to spread disinformation, B) a partisan hack working to spread disinformation that you believe or C) a zealot whose religion is conspiracy theories. In any of those cases you are not open to the idea that you might be wrong, which makes you pretty much a useless waste of my time.

90

You are a peasant. And a troll. You have flatly REFUSED to answer the points I have raised, saying, “The science is established so I refuse to go over it again.”

So lets see - with storm surges of 28ft or more, why does arguing about 10ins or 20 per century matter? Are there more storms today? No. Look it up. Temps declined 1940 to 1978 despite huge amounts of extra CO2. Does not correlate with your mediocre theory. Has cloud cover decreased? Yes it has. Show me evidence it has not. “Seawater pH! Disaster!” Just NOT true.

I could go on. Unless you start discussing in a rational fashion I will not reply to your trollish posts. I have no connection with fossil fuels. I am a well trained scientist. At ALS CHEMEX we had scales that weighed that weighed to a millionth of a gram. Airlock to get in.

91

Where is the emergency? 20 year warming hiatus and according to Synodic Resonance and others, we are in for a time of cooling. Cut out the trash talk buster. Where is your logical argument? None. Because you are incapable of it.

What do you know of “insolation”? Hm? Google away, “I am a clever because I can use Google.” The trouble is Google is written by grade 9 brain damaged gerbils! Wikipedia changes by the MINUTE. 20 years ago, there were many pages about Konyets, Numbers radio. Now there is ONE.

Kindly try acting sensibly. Discuss. Try and make points.

Seems all on this site are malevolent trolls; poorly educated; vicious. Have a nice day.

 

92

And now there’s name calling (again. You’ve been insulting people almost since the beginning). Classy. And I don’t think you know the definition of “troll”. You’re the one crapping in our home, after all.

Let me be perfectly clear, the science IS established…BY SCIENTISTS! It is the job of SCIENTISTS to determine of manmade climate change is a real thing and, big shocker, IT IS! We ARE NOT climate scientists. We DO NOT owe you an explanation for climate science. We ARE NOT your personal fact checkers. But we have generously donated our time and effort to fact check you nonetheless. And boy, have we done you a great service because your facts are CRAP!

If you want to be taken seriously here then stop being a dick and stop posting walls of text with a dozen more ridiculous claims until AFTER you address the claims we have ALREADY shown to be ridiculous. If YOU really, actually wanted an intellectual conversation then you would address the issues brought up with your ridiculous claims before posting new ridiculous claims. You have no “facts” at all. What you have is conservative talking points. Nothing more. If you want a meaningful conversation then apologize for your tone and then post ONE thing you think is a problem for climate science and, when we address that and find a problem with it, DO NOT post 3 dozen MORE mistaken claims, talk about THAT ONE. And, and this part is important, ACCEPT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG! You have not acknowledged ONE wrong “fact” even though I, personally, have pointed out many to you, as have others here.

93

Mark, The U.S. has never had feudalism as a form of govt. So we don’t have peasants. You seem to despise peasants. And yet your Royalty disagrees with your promotion of climate change denial. You are so far off the mark that Harry doesn’t even believe someone with your beliefs could exist.

Calling Americans peasants is not the insult that you imagine. Perhaps if our autocrat-wanna-be POTUS decides on a whim that he wants to be King, and establish Feudalism, that will change. But til then, we don’t even know what you mean by “peasants”. What is that? Farmers? What’s wrong with being a farmer?

As far as being a troll, you are the one that tried to use the name-calling of “peasant” as a pejorative.

I have answered your main point twice, now. Your central thesis, Sir Scientist, about CO2 saturation is unfounded.

 

94

Widdershins you are VERY intelligent. And I recognize you were being tongue-in-cheek about your on-line IQ.

But just as a public announcement I would like to reiterate that IQ scores are meaningless unless done with accepted standardized testing tools by professional Diagnosticians or Psychologists.

95

Yes, it was my intention to point that out, but thank you for clarifying that as it might not have been entirely clear in my sarcasm.

96

John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist at Texas A&M University in College Station, said"Compared to a storm that would have hit, say, 30 years ago, the additional storm surge we are talking about is on the order of … about 7 inches…" If you are near a floodable area, over 1/2 a foot extra sometimes means flooding where it would not have been otherwise.

Every year now, we are hearing about places being flooded, that have never flooded before in living memory. And hurricanes are not getting stronger? Please. There was a Hurricane just this year that left a previously well populated island looking as if were the leftover of a Hydrogen bomb explosion. EVERYTHING was levelled.

97

@widdershins He shouldn’t be calling people names for a while. He’s blocked. He was warned and after reading his name calling, I blocked him. Yeah, sorry if you noticed my screw up before I fixed it. Didn’t mean to hit you. I meant to hit him, but I fixed it.

98

All good. Probably the quickest mystery I’ve ever solved. I’ve earned a beer! I liked beer. I still like beer…you know the rest.

99

Here you go and on tap too http://theexchangesaloon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/stonescovebeericon.png

100

You know, I don’t actually drink that often. One or two every few years at most. But that does look good.