Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2018,10:22)|
|Quote (k.e.. @ April 17 2018,10:07)|
|Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2018,16:23)|
|Quote (Lethean @ April 17 2018,07:40)|
|Quote (stevestory @ April 11 2018,08:15)|
|Boy, they're full-blown global warming deniers over there, ain't they? No surprise. Global warming is basic chemistry. If we can't expect them to understand basic biology, basic chemistry is probly slightly harder, even.|
CO2 ... It's what plants crave.
CO2 is what plants crave. And if CO2 were the issue then every year should be warmer the previous year as more CO2 is getting pumped into the atmosphere year after year.
But we don't see that. We see the CO2 increasing but the temperature doesn't follow. Any and all alleged increase since 1880 is covered under natural variability. The fact that people have to adjust the data to make it look like AGW is something else to consider.
Urban heat islands are real. That and clear-cutting forests to raise livestock and food for livestock are the real problems, not CO2.
And now we're back to elementary school science.
1. What is the difference between dry ice and ice.
2. Under what conditions does dry ice float on liquid CO2
What does that have to do with AGW?
What does that have to do with anything I have posted?
Hey dumbass I guess you missed it.
Last month lawyers for Chevron testified under oath the IPCC position on AGW is correct, that AGW is caused by CO2 from fossil fuel usage and humans are almost totally responsible.
|Chevron admits IPCC is correct on climate change|
In a federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday, major oil companies concurred with the “scientific consensus,” saying it was “extremely likely” that human activity has been driving global warming since the middle of the 20th century. They just don’t think they can be sued for it.
“Chevron accepts what the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] has reached consensus on concerning science and climate change,” said Theodore Boutrous, who represents Chevron and is heading up the assorted legal team for the five oil companies that are defendants in this lawsuit. But, he said, that didn’t mean that a civil lawsuit was the right way to address climate change. “It’s a global issue that requires global action,” he said.
Over the course of two hours, Boutrous ran through the findings of the most recent IPCC report (released in 2013), acknowledging that global temperatures were rising due to carbon dioxide caused by human activity, that other factors were negligible, and that as a result, sea levels were rising. No time was given to any denials of climate science, with Boutrous sticking closely to the substance of the IPCC report. Even his attempt at implying that his client was not at fault was framed within the substance of the IPCC report; he said that the report never said “extraction or production” of oil was the cause of carbon dioxide emissions, but rather the “economic activity” that burned fossil fuels.
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC