You have been asked politely to post any proof whatsoever of your position. You have yet to do so. You have been the beneficiary of alternate theories and explanations, which you have refused to address or refute. Your total argument seems to be “All the people that make me feel superior posted this and I have linked to it. You all are so ignorant that you can’t see that popularity of opinion makes truth.”

You are absolutely correct again, I can’t see that popularity of opinion in a few hysterical sufferers of inferiority complex makes their position true.

None here have disputed that warming is taking place, you are one of the few, though, that think you are omniscient. Funny how that works, you know what and /or who is causting it , but you don’t know how you know.

NO Thank you. I’ll wait for the science to catch up.

The earth has been much warmer, relatively, than it is now. Explain why the planet isn’t dead as per your prediction based on current conditions.

The ignorance is on your part. To hold the position you now hold it is necessary to ignore millennia of history, contradictions in evidence, and the deep divide between those who make a living off this farce and those who are actually studying the climatological changes on Earth. NO, my friend, the ignorance is on your part and you are a willing ignoramus.

You have yet to answer the question of whether or not global warming is a bad thing. Tell us about the polar bears. You remember, those poor little animals that had about 3 weeks in the limelight about how they were drowning due to global warming. Tell us about that, while you’re at it tell us about the sudden disappearance from the media of that particular issue. You might even go on to examine the great European starvation in medieval times and tie that to climate. Or haven’t you yet been told what you believe about that?

Provide one experiment that proves the hypothesis. It is a stretch to call it a theory.

Just one. I can read realclimate.org on my own. When you have something beyond what you can parrot make your case.

Try this, establish a green house without the solid enclosure, in other words, only atmosphere and the universe beyond your greenhouse

You really don’t get it, do you? Sad. It’s really not all that hard to understand that the atmosphere retains heat.

This really is like somebody who failed pre-algebra in the 7th grade insisting that multivariable calculus is bunk.

SWAG=swinging wild ass guess

I guess these guys are all Marxists, right?

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Cause every one of them has endorsed the IPCC findings.

So here’s the challenge - define socialism. And no Wikipedia, please.

Sorry Rachel, I missed that. You do deserve a response.

Man-made Global Warming is socialism. Soylent Green is people. Same idea.

See, I told you so.

You also used the wrong formula

You putting 383ppm of Polonium on those Wheaties yet? Let’s talk about some of the shit you got wrong. Like the idea that CO2 has to reflect all of the sun’s radiation into space for the GHE to happen (stupefyingly ignorant on your part). Or more importantly the idea that increasing the relative concentration of a key GHG by a third (since as you pointed out so carefully the formula) is somehow “miniscule”. You failed to address any of the posts by me and others showing how ridiculously misinformed your objection here was.

If CO2 concentration XYZ results in global mean temp A, why is it hard to understand why CO2 concentration XYZ+35% is going to be substantially different?

You can’t even grasp the basics of the greenhouse effect when they’re shown to you in simple layman’s terms…but you want to us to think you’re anything but a blathering idgit on this subject.

Sorry, but I simply don’t suffer fools like you very well.

I have purposely put a phrase in twice to test you and you have missed it each time.

This reminds me of when a girl says “there’s nothing wrong” when you’re supposed to know that something’s wrong. What sort of trick do you think you’re pulling?

You also used the wrong formula to calculate the percent change in CO2.

It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis.

Assuming arguendo you’re right and I goofed on the math, what bearing does that have on the fact that climatologists OVERWHELMINGLY AGREE WITH ME AND DISAGREE WITH YOU? Me being careless with math (a mistake a later explained) doesn’t change the fact that YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE WELL ESTABLISHED BASICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAT NOT EVEN THE STAUNCHEST CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS WILL ARGUE WITH.

Get this through you thick fucking skull–even Singer and Lindzen and Gray won’t try to argue that the GHE isn’t real. Only a real idiot would do as much…thanks for showing us just how stupid you really are. It really is amazing that Uncle tolerates your presence, let alone your posting here. It’s the biggest blemish on an otherwise great blog.

The picture you posted is laughable

No, it’s how the fucking physics of the GHE works. You really are an uneducated twit.

Can you point to anything that’s wrong with it? No. Can you point to anything it’s got wrong? No. You’re just being a fucktard. You really are an embarassment to yourself–your posting stuff that’s in direct contradiction to well established science. You might as well insist the sky might be red and e does not equal mc squared.

It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis.

I can’t wait to see the explanation on this one. This is like Jessica Simpson insisting that Einstein didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to that whole relativity thing.

PS: It’s been shown that cosmic rays cannot explain observed climate trends.

We disagree. It is not a big thing.

It IS a big thing. You consistently post really dumb shit. You can’t even grasp the basics of the greenhouse effect but want people to think your skepticism about AGW has merit. It’s like somebody who can’t change a tire insisting he can do a turbocharger upgrade and a head gasket swap.

In short….you’re a retard and really annoying to listen to. Time after time, link after link, I show you how wrong you are…and you keep at it.

I don’t want to be your friend. I don’t want to make nice with you. I certainly have no interest in being nice to someone as willfully ignorant as you are. Go fuck yourself.

I don’t need to insult you or correct you.

As though someone as misinformed and willfully moronic as yourself could do either.

You do understand how arrogant it is to say that a certain place should have a certain temperature?

No. Who the fuck ever did any such thing?

I have purposely put a phrase in twice to test you and you have missed it each time.

You also used the wrong formula to calculate the percent change in CO2. A simple math calculation. Yet you are telling me I don’t understand. The picture you posted is laughable. It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis. In fact it is better used for that hypnosis than man-made Global Warming.

I concede nothing at this point. I appreciate your passion. We disagree. It is not a big thing. I don’t need to insult you or correct you. America will not approve Kyoto or any of the crazy Global Warming remedies. I think you know that. My interest is in how and why people believe this. I am fascinated by how many people believe in Man-made Global Warming.

This whole Man-made Global Warming thing reminds me of the “Spanish Prisoner” con. You have to want to believe for it to work. I don’t have that need. But obviously many do.

You do understand how arrogant it is to say that a certain place should have a certain temperature?

I would however be very interested in seeing the detail of how Man-Made Global Warming works. I have watch Mr. Gore’s movie several times and read much more of realclimate.org than needed.

Can you show how specifically the process works? For instance, why have studies not be performed using the mirrors on the Moon from the Apollo program. You would think that reflecting laser light off the Moon and calculating the timing would provide some clues as to Mr. Gore’s hypothesis. Where are the studies in infrared from satellites? Why all theory and and so little experimentation? Where are the breakthrough experiments?

Or is that not a fair question?

Yes, how exactly does this mysterious process work?

Check the link I provided, it explains how the greenhouse effect works in layman’s terms pretty well.

Just a thought…seeing as you’re conceeding that you don’t understand how the GHE works, don’t you think it’s a bit silly of you to insist that AGW isn’t happening?

How does this miracle gas let heat through, but not let it escape?

Asked and answered. The atmosphere reflects some radiation, it absorbs some, and some passes through and is absorbed by the earth. A portion of the radiation reflected back toward space is captured and retained in the atmosphere. This isn’t hard, dude. But the fact that you don’t understand this process really sheds light on how un-meritorious your skepticism is. In short…you’re talking a lot of shit on a subject you don’t know jackshit about.

You really do have a very poor understanding of the basic physics here…but you’re convinced it isn’t happening. Even the biggest GW deniers don’t doubt that the GHE is real. We wouldn’t be here if it didn’t.

For instance, I didn’t know that CO2 was directional. But it must be if your premise is true. It can trap heat in, but can’t trap it out. Please explain that.

The climate forcing of CO2 is pretty well understood. I’d be happy to link to information that will help you better understand it. Here’s a good explanation of how the GHE works, and why your question doesn’t really make much sense. The answer is that some solar energy is absorbed, and some is reflected back into space. CO2 isn’t “directional” at all. Hope that helps.

Sorry if you don’t like that I get testy with you and certain other folks, but it’s pretty clear that you guys have a very poor grasp of the basic science at work here…and yet you’re quite convinced the science is wrong. You’re basically saying you’re sure the AGW thing isn’t happening, even though you don’t understand it very well.

It kinda reminds me of Rep. McCarthy and the barrel shroud.

Scott, why do you think I asked about the volume of the atmosphere? You and Sebastian-PGP keep comparing a human being to the Planet Earth. I appreciate you may believe in Gaia and think the Earth is alive, but a human being is much smaller than the Planet Earth.

If you want to play the math game work a little harder. It is about volume and dispersion. If you want to compare apples to hammers go ahead. But do not expect more replies on what is just goofy.

Yes, how exactly does this mysterious process work? Is the exceedingly small amount of CO2, 383 parts per million, or .000383 for those of you without calculators, equally dispersed through the atmosphere? Or does it form a ribbon around the atmosphere to trap the heat? Maybe it forms a barrier between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere? Maybe little bunnies are the cause? Aliens, could it be the work of ET?

How exactly does it trap the heat? Is this a refractive process, a radiative process, a reflective process, or just something from the Goracle Bible, ie realclimate.org, that isn’t really explained? Is it conduction or convection? Is it real or is it fantasy? Is it something the faithful accept on faith?

How does this miracle gas let heat through, but not let it escape?

Bonus points, what is the volume of the atmosphere? Scott you can help too.

But wait, there’s more. Maybe Global Warming is just a way for hippies to get even with rich middle aged men with bad hair. Yeah, take away their little red Porsche. That will fix the bastards.

When challenged you just get ugly on a personal level. That tells me you don’t have the proof, only the emotional need to feel superior to those you view as geo-rapists.

For instance, I didn’t know that CO2 was directional. But it must be if your premise is true. It can trap heat in, but can’t trap it out. Please explain that. Just explain that one thing, for a start. If you can we can move to your next point. “Because I said so.” doesn’t count.

Why not just call him a poopie brains? Anything that’s easier than thinking, right?

Al Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?

Both.

I’m the one pointing out that letting your irrational, emotional attachment to ideas like “AlGore sucks!” and “I can do whatever the fuck I please without consequences” isn’t very scientific. Your intuition and the seat of your pants aren’t useful scientifically nor are they wise tools for forming public policy.

If that makes me smug, well it’s a title I’ll wear gladly.

What’s not smug about them?

I’m reminded of the princess bride…”you keep on using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.”

It appears your definition of smug means “scientists telling us what they think.” I refer you to my above post. Am I smug when I point out you’re wrong when you claim the atomic mass of Cobalt is something other than 58.933200?

If your definition of smug includes scientists telling you things you don’t want to hear, then you’re really not grown up enough for this. Sorry.

Both entries are pure, unadulterated smarm.

Oh well. Grow up a bit and get over it. One of the perks of being a scientist is they’re not really under any obligation to not report their findings because you find them uncomfortable. They could be calling you a poophead while they do it, the plain truth is that there’s no set of observations about Mars or Venus that hurts the case for AGW.

A site merely asserting that as though it were an established fact is not

Too bad for you that neither of those links–which you apparently didn’t read in the first place–is doing that. They’re merely pointing out that three years worth of climate observation in a small region of Mars doesn’t tell us much about what the effect of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere of the earth will do.

If that bugs you…well…call a whaaaaaaaambulance.

What’s smug about them?

What’s not smug about them? Both entries are pure, unadulterated smarm. A site proving that global warming on Earth, Mars and Venus is happening independently of the sun would be interesting. A site merely asserting that as though it were an established fact is not.

Some of the nerve toxins that SH was worrying us with were quite deadly at concentrations a lot less than 383ppm.

If #9 weren’t quite so sure that all those evil scientists were trying to dupe us to make us all socialists, he might realize that his homily-type reasoning doesn’t even pass the smell test.

We know that without CO2’s climate forcing, the earth would be a frozen, uninhabitable waste. We know that the earth’s relatively stable pre-IR mean temperature was a function of the CO2 concentration being a certain amount.

So let’s review:

Mean earth temp X is a function of CO2 concentration being N.

Why wouldn’t a concentration of(N+0.35N) have a different result?

Am I smug when I point out that you’re going to have few scientists in agreement with you if you doubt that F=ma? Am I smug when I point out that you’re a going to have few scientists in agreement with you if you support Intelligent Design over the TOE?

Of course not. I’m simply pointing out that the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists trained in the relevant fields don’t share your position. It’s no different with the Mars-is-warming bullshit you seem to be falling for.

If it hurts your feelings that much to have someone point out that scientists don’t agree with you, this might not be your sport.