Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[Padawanbater2]

There are significantly less deaths from disease because of vaccines

That's the only fact anyone honestly speculating about the effectiveness of vaccines needs to know

But just to dispel your retarded claims that people all of a sudden, as soon as the Measles vaccine was developed, coincidentally stopped contracting and dying from the disease because of improvements in sanitation;

"In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, an estimated 3–4 million persons in the United States were infected each year, of whom 400–500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis. Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the United States compared with the pre-vaccine era."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm

Now shut the fuck up about the effectiveness of vaccination

 

[jahbrudda]

doi:

Sherwood B. Idso

Sherwood B. Idso assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on 4 October 2001


Abstract
Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies. Consequently, since increasing global population requires more and more food, and since elevated CO2 concentrations have been documented to enhance crop productivity by increasing rates of photosynthesis, and water use efficiency by decreasing rates of transpiration, it is further concluded that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 may actually be beneficial to our future well-being.

 

[UncleBuck]

(ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2increase has been downwards

really?

surface air temps went down from 1945 to 2001?

that's not what NASA seems to think.

by the way, idso works for The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

they get funding from exxonmobil, for the record.

you're not really good at this, beenthere.

 

[jahbrudda]

We can never trust the IPPC, they receive funding from George Soros.

 

[UncleBuck]

We can never trust the IPPC, they receive funding from George Soros.

so you want to tell me again about how temps have gone down from 1945 - 2001?

 

[jahbrudda]

So can you please tell us about the disappearing polar bears again.

 

[UncleBuck]

So can you please tell us about the disappearing polar bears again.

i'll tell you all about it AGAIN if you can show me where i have ever told you about it in the first place, beenthere.

i'll be waiting for you to show me.

 

[abandonconflict]

doi:

Sherwood B. Idso

Sherwood B. Idso assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on 4 October 2001


Abstract
Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies. Consequently, since increasing global population requires more and more food, and since elevated CO2 concentrations have been documented to enhance crop productivity by increasing rates of photosynthesis, and water use efficiency by decreasing rates of transpiration, it is further concluded that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 may actually be beneficial to our future well-being.

please also provide a link with your citation

They only measured average surface air temperature over a 12 year period and as has been explained to you repeatedly, these averages conceal extreme variation and completely ignore warming of the ocean.

 

[jahbrudda]

please also provide a link with your citation

They only measured average surface air temperature over a 12 year period and as has been explained to you repeatedly, these averages conceal extreme variation and completely ignore warming of the ocean.

Your use of the phrase "explained repeatedly" sounds as if you are citing indisputable facts but you aren't, you are referancing opinions.
You continue to insist the missing warming is hidden in the oceans but ignore the fact that from 1971-2010 the oceans temperatures have only risen 0.44 c.

And there are many links to Sherwood B Idso's peer reviewed article.
Here is one of them.
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/12/2/JEQ0120020159

 

[heckler73]

please also provide a link with your citation

They only measured average surface air temperature over a 12 year period and as has been explained to you repeatedly, these averages conceal extreme variation and completely ignore warming of the ocean.

Are you concerned about the accuracy of studies due to "concealed variation"?

 

[abandonconflict]

Your use of the phrase "explained repeatedly" sounds as if you are citing indisputable facts but you aren't, you are referancing opinions.
You continue to insist the missing warming is hidden in the oceans but ignore the fact that from 1971-2010 the oceans temperatures have only risen 0.44 c.

And there are many links to Sherwood B Idso's peer reviewed article.
Here is one of them.
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/12/2/JEQ0120020159

ONLY???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

only more than 1 degree Fahrenheit temperature average increase in 40 years is like saying you're not obese because you only weigh 450

 

[texasjack]

The funny thing about this thread is that the only people who think there is a "debate" about climate change are American Republicans. It's basically settled science. And speaking of settled science, we have much more evidence for evolution than we do for gravity just so you know.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

ONLY???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

only more than 1 degree Fahrenheit temperature average increase in 40 years is like saying you're not obese because you only weigh 450

No, it's like calling a woman fat for being pregnant. Liberals have problems with accepting the natural order of life.

 

[abandonconflict]

No, it's like calling a woman fat for being pregnant. Liberals have problems with accepting the natural order of life.

no

an increase of global average temperature of one degree Fahrenheit in 4 decades is fucking extreme

 

[Canna Sylvan]

The funny thing about this thread is that the only people who think there is a "debate" about climate change are American Republicans. It's basically settled science. And speaking of settled science, we have much more evidence for evolution than we do for gravity just so you know.

Scientists used to call the Ether settled science too and it was accepted by scientists and taught at the university level.

 

[texasjack]

Well, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a industry backed political movement who proved them wrong but rather other scientists. So I'll wait for that.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

no

an increase of global average temperature of one degree Fahrenheit in 4 decades is fucking extreme

The process a woman's body goes through is extreme too.

 

[abandonconflict]

The process a woman's body goes through is extreme too.

I know you feel the need to explain why women do not permit you near them, but we're talking about the climate, dipshit.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I know you feel the need to explain why women do not permit you near them, but we're talking about the climate, dipshit.

I'm not the one who has to pay "random hot chicks" to fuck me.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm not the one who has to pay "random hot chicks" to fuck me.

Neither am I, but I would rather talk about the climate. Are you afraid to talk about the climate?