Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30878 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31270 Jan 27, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have ALREADY POSTED MANY TIMES, I have USED LINKED REFERENCES for the REAL TEMPERATURE of the SUN.
I will REPEAT THEM AGAIN since you seem to suffer from AGW CULT MEMORY LOSS:
The sources FROM TEXT-BOOKS, BOOKS or PUBLICATIONS.
There are five sources for the surface temp of the Sun (6000,5500,5700,6000 and 5600 deg C).
The average is 5800 deg C or 6073 K and a max of 6000 deg C or 6273 K.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFi...
----
File:EffectiveTemperature 300dpi e.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectiveTe...
If you look closely at the Effective Temperature graph above you will see that the Green Light real peak is at about 462 nm and using Wein's
Displacement Law will produce a Sun temperature of 6273 K (thats 6000 deg C) and agrees with the link I quoted above!
----
Finally, I have seen a number of AGW'er papers and other sources that correctly state that the actual Sun temperature is much higher than 5778 K.
Here is one example:
HEATING THE EARTH
"3. If the Sun were a blackbody, this emissivity would correspond to a surface temperature of 5798°K. However, the wavelength of maximum
intensity is at 0.475 microns (green light). By Wien’s Law, this is the maximum that would be produced by a blackbody at a temperature of 6101°
K."
http://www.climates.com/SPECIAL%20TOPICS/GW/h...
----
So there you have the REFERENCES I USED AGAIN, including the one from a AGWer.
These are ALL PROOF that the AGW QUACK "scientists" have FRADULENTLY REDUCED the temperature of the SUN in an attempt to justify their "Greenhouse Effect" FRAUD that CLEARLY VIOLATES The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and has been PROVEN WRONG because:
- There ARE ZERO Laws of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"
- There ARE ZERO Measurements, EVER DONE in the History of Mankind, where a COLD Body has EVER HEATED-UP a WARMER Body.
- There ARE ZERO Measurements, EVER DONE in the History of Mankind, where a COLD Atmosphere has EVER HEATED-UP a Warmer Earth Surface
- In FACT EVERY MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE, confirms that the COLD Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth Surface
And, that is why YOU, despite your LYING STATEMENT,:
"That is, THE ATMOSPHERE HELPS THE SUN WARM THE EARTH, even though it's significantly cooler than the surface. This is a scientific fact. There are not just thousands, but many millions,perhaps
billions, of measurements that support this."
You know what, SUXObama? I don't CARE that much what the sun's surface temperature is. As I've posted before it's ~6000º K, & that's good enough for me for now.

You're talking to the wrong guy. Since you're so convinced you're right about the sun's temp & everyone else is wrong, though, why don't you submit a scientific paper or two proving the standard interpretation is wrong? Then sit back & wait for that call from the King of Sweden.

And I DID post the Vinnikov study, which is ABOUT measurements & their interpretations. I can't help it if you can't see something directly in front of your face.

Hopefully others who come here won't have nearly as much trouble appreciating facts as you do.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31271 Jan 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Ah, ObamaSux is using his multiple ids to vote for himself with the 3X3X3.
I say we all vote him a clueless, and those he votes against a check up.
That'll at least force him to pull his 9X9X9 multiple alter egos.
This is obviously not a reputable website, since they allow this type of shenanigan.
Peace.

Remember we are here because the deniers are here. That's all.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31273 Jan 27, 2013
Evidence: Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

• Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
factologist

Farmington, NM

#31274 Jan 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
When you say that radiative transfer is always from a warmer to a colder object, you're talking about a CLOSED SYSTEM.
A slight change to your statement. Radiative transfer is the physical phenomenon of energy transfer in the form of electromagnetic radiation. It is not dependent on the emitting objects temperature nor the absorbing objects temperature. No matter whether the system is closed or not.
Emitting/absorption of radiation energy(photon)is only dependent on discrete quantum level electron energy transitions- from lesser to higher transitions result from the absorption of a photon of energy and transitions from higher to lower result in the emission of a photon of energy.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31275 Jan 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Ah, ObamaSux is using his multiple ids to vote for himself with the 3X3X3.
I say we all vote him a clueless, and those he votes against a check up.
That'll at least force him to pull his 9X9X9 multiple alter egos.
This is obviously not a reputable website, since they allow this type of shenanigan.
Gord/SuxObama is here as just a constant idiot voice to counter ours of reason.

PHD and another couple are just here to troll everybody, as they dispute and deride denier and AGW reasoners alike. Sad people sitting alone in their basements, mad at the world, without education, intellect, or anything else to do.

And you may call me an AGW propagandist. I try to be optimistic, but I know that if the worst predictions come true, it will be very, very bad. If we, and the plants, and the animals can adapt, at least mostly adapt, it might not be terrible. But there's no harm in reducing our emissions and switching to a more sustainable society anyway.

But I have very little patience with fools.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31276 Jan 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gord/SuxObama is here as just a constant idiot voice to counter ours of reason.
PHD and another couple are just here to troll everybody, as they dispute and deride denier and AGW reasoners alike. Sad people sitting alone in their basements, mad at the world, without education, intellect, or anything else to do.
And you may call me an AGW propagandist. I try to be optimistic, but I know that if the worst predictions come true, it will be very, very bad. If we, and the plants, and the animals can adapt, at least mostly adapt, it might not be terrible. But there's no harm in reducing our emissions and switching to a more sustainable society anyway.
But I have very little patience with fools.
It's not right that Topix lets him have the multiple alter egos.

Crazies should get their one vote -- but no more.
conservative

Ontario, CA

#31278 Jan 27, 2013
Squal Tallon wrote:
You who call it the Global Warming theory should be shot.
Im assuming we all believe Darwins THEORY of evolution is still a theory?
Just because it gets cold does not mean Global Warming is not a problem.
People like you caused the name Climate Change to be used since your to ridiculous to understand the bigger picture.
Global temperatures do rise, and many things pollute the atmosphere, but the major contributor is CO2.
Maybe you should stop contributing to the CO2 level by not breathing, then.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31279 Jan 27, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
Continuation...
Do you REALLY think that a COLD Atmosphere can HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth Surface?
There are ZERO MEASUREMENTS, EVER DONE in the history of Mankind, to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".
That's why the AGW CULT NUTS can't Post even "ONE" Measurement.
----------
<quoted text>
There are no Measurements to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" so what "data" am I supposed to interpret?
I am certain beyond any doubt because:
- The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says Cold Objects (like the Cold Atmosphere) CANNOT Heat-up Warmer Objects (like the Earth Surface)
- Every Measurement, ever done, confirms the Validity of The 2nd Law.
- There are no measurements to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"
Quotes:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.— Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.— Karl Popper
REAL SCIENCE uses ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS for PROOF....and there are no Measurements to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"/ AGW "theory".
YES, I do have a scientific background.
I am a Professional Electrical Engineer and have been a Licensed Engineering Consultant for over 24 years.
I Consult on many aspects of Communications Systems including Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in the Optical, Infrared (that's the spectrum that Back Radiation is in), Microwave & Satellite, UHF TV, VHF TV and FM Radio.
I should point out that Electromagnetic Wave Propagation is in the Domain of Engineering for Public Licensed Practice.
"Climatologists" receive very little, if any, training in Electromagnetic Wave Propagation (even though it is the very BASIS of the so called "Greenhouse Effect") and ARE NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE in this AREA OF PHYSICS.
----------
Finally, perhaps you should take your own advice that you gave "Tina anne":
<quoted text>
I have presented the FACTS complete with the easily understood and established 2nd Law that has never been shown to to be wrong and actual Quotes from the IPCC AR4 report that proves the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" has no basis in Science, violates the 2nd Law, and has Zero Measurements to support it.
It's up to you to decide whether the AGW Frauds are right or established Science and every Measurement ever made is the TRUTH.
You're not presenting facts. You're presenting a small sliver of a very large puzzle. And you're over-simplifying the issue by focusing on one thing that you don't seem to understand or explain very well. Lastly, an electrical engineer is not a scientist. So, no you don't have a scientific background.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31280 Jan 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet a Phd can be wrong. History has scores of such examples. While I have watched Fox and read the Drudge report it is not my only sources. I also watch and read other sources to see competing views and question all that all say.
As for education, history is also full of those who have educated themselves. After all, who was going to teach the Wright Brothers how to fly a plane or Fulton to operate a steam boat. Who was going to teach Henry Ford how to make an assembly line a sucess.
At some point they had to educate themselves and they are not the only ones. Others have educated themselves about any number of subjects from auto mechanices to quatuum mechanics. Thanks to the internet it is now possible to not only do so but to the same level as that PhD on any number of subjects. Courses from places like Harvard, Yale, MIT. One reason why those schools would offer such for free is that once one has taken all those courses they are going to want a degree and will pay for it. If they have already done the course work then the school can just charge them a nominal fee for each course and test them to certify that they know the material.
I'm not saying that people can't learn from non-academic sources. I'm saying that I would trust a PhD who studied climate change for decades versus some average joe who took a few classes or watches the discovery channel. When you go to the hospital for surgery would you prefer someone who read a medical book or someone who went to medical school?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31281 Jan 27, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>What is AWG? If it's something political, don't waste your time - I don't care about left/right politics. Why do you keep talking about racism? Blacks are a different species NOT a race (you idiot), so techniclly I'm a "speciest". Also, you seem like such a little b*tch.
Wow, how did this turn from global warming to this? Where is the data that blacks are a different species? They're just as human as anyone else. There's only one race of people--human. There are a lot of people out there who are a mixture of both ethnicities. What would say to them? They're part human and something else? Nonsense.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31282 Jan 27, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>A slight change to your statement. Radiative transfer is the physical phenomenon of energy transfer in the form of electromagnetic radiation. It is not dependent on the emitting objects temperature nor the absorbing objects temperature. No matter whether the system is closed or not.
Emitting/absorption of radiation energy(photon)is only dependent on discrete quantum level electron energy transitions- from lesser to higher transitions result from the absorption of a photon of energy and transitions from higher to lower result in the emission of a photon of energy.
I was trying to start from SUXObama's wacko language & make it correct, but obviously failed. Thank you for the correction. I believe you're absolutely right.

Now, if we can only get thru to SUX himself... naaah, he'll never admit he's wrong.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31283 Jan 27, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>"...you'd better have some pretty strong evidence."
Not really. There's no point in convincing anyone about anything on Topix. Most people are close-minded, name-calling luntics.
OK, so you can just drop in here to an AGW/CC thread & say (essentially) "Africans are a separate (& likely, to you, inferior) species from other humans," accuse people who question you of being closed-minded, name-calling lunAtics (isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black!!), but not give any evidence.

OK, whatever.

No wonder others say you're full of nonsense.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31284 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
This competition between Pete the AGW RACIST and PHD the AGW RACIST is going faster than their POST are appearing on TOPIX.
PHD HAS produced a real "surge" of LIES and BABBLING...with NO MEASUREMENTS POSTED.
The race to the HILLS is now VERY CLOSE between the two AGW RACISTS.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31285 Jan 28, 2013
I see the poster ObamaSucks voted multiple times here again.

He does that whenever he is proven as a crazy.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31286 Jan 28, 2013
Maybe you should take the hint and show your own peer review published work? How do you know the above voted multiple times? Are you using more scientific science fiction or a crystal ball?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31287 Jan 28, 2013
PHD wrote:
Maybe you should take the hint and show your own peer review published work? How do you know the above voted multiple times? Are you using more scientific science fiction or a crystal ball?
Science always refers to the published peer review of others.

Always proving yourself the crazy anti-science Troll.
You appear to be PROUD of that.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31288 Jan 28, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science always refers to the published peer review of others.
Always proving yourself the crazy anti-science Troll.
You appear to be PROUD of that.
Not as PROUD as you are with your scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble. So are you going to show your peer review published work or more of the same crazy scientific science fiction? Oh COMMANDER TROLL. I'm not anti Science just anti scienctifis science fiction you post daily.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31289 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
SUXObama,
I must admit your stubbornness is indeed amusing. It's also VERY amusing that you THINK you understand the science, but clearly do NOT. You are profoundly misapplying the science you do know, which I admit is significant.
I edited your post & changed capitals to emphasize what's important. The Second law prohibits DIRECT heat flow, i.e. by CONDUCTION, from cold to warm objects.
However, as you've admitted, EMR travels across a vacuum, & can transfer heat blah blah).


I have POSTED THE Laws of Science and EVERYTHING I POSTED is supported BY COUNTLESS ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS.

All the AGW CULT LYING and BABBLING that YOU POST, is NOT supported BY "ANY" LAWS of SCIENCE or "ANY" MEASUREMENT....EVER.

Your IDIOTIC statement:

"That is, THE ATMOSPHERE HELPS THE SUN WARM THE EARTH, even though it's significantly cooler than the surface. This is a scientific fact. There are not just thousands, but many millions,perhaps
billions, of measurements that support this."

... Is a PROVEN LIE, evident in the FACT that YOU HAVE NOT and CANNOT POST even "ONE" Measurement to support YOUR OBVIOUS LYING STATEMENT.
----------
Further,

I posted MY PREDICTION about how YOU and your AGW CULT MEMBERS would react to my SIMPLE QUESTION directed TO ALL OF YOU "AGW CULT MEMBERS" HERE:

"HEY, WHY CAN'T ANY of you AGW CULT MEMBERS POST:

- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH

Come on, ANSWER the SIMPLE QUESTION.

I PREDICT that the AGW "TRACK TEAM" have a collective Panic Attack, crap their pants and ALL RUN FOR THE HILLS.

The AGW CULT rules of behaviour embedded in their collective "brainwashed" CULT MINDS will PROHIBIT ANY OF THEM from answering my SIMPLE QUESTION.

The AGW CULT is SO PREDICTABLE.

Normal People.....Watch and LEARN."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
EXACTLY as I PREDICTED,

YOU and the AGW "TRACK TEAM" have had collective Panic Attack, crapped their pants and have ALL RUN FOR THE HILLS !!!

The AGW CULT is just SO PREDICTABLE when one EXPOSES THEIR collective LIES by revealling the TRUTH.

The Normal People reading Topix have WITNESSED that my PREDICTION is TRUE and have now seen ALL the AGW CULT in ACTION...AGAIN.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31290 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
SUXObama,
My response to the 1st part of your post, regarding Stefan-Boltzmann from hyperphysics, is "And??" This has nothing to do with radiative forcing.
The rest of your post is equine excrement wrapped in insane NONSENSE. When you say that radiative transfer is always from a warmer to a colder object, you're talking about a CLOSED SYSTEM.
The earth-atmosphere system is not a closed system...blah blah .
HAHAHA...HAHAHA...that's SO FUNNY and SO STUPID.

Closed system
"In physics, a closed system can exchange heat and work, but not matter, with its surroundings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

Closed System
"Is is a system that transfers energy, but not matter, across its boundary to the surrounding environment. Our planet is often viewed as a closed system."
http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/...

Types of Thermodynamic Systems
"A closed system has no transfer of mass with its surroundings, but may have a transfer of energy (either heat or work) with its surroundings."
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/t...

"Climatologist Inez Fung looks at Earth's atmosphere to get answers about the climate on our planet. When you gaze up at the sky, it appears to have no boundaries. But Earth does have limits—it
is a closed system—and Earth's atmosphere prevents many things (except sunlight) from entering or leaving the system."
http://www.iwaswondering.org/inez_activity_1....

DUH!
----
And, there is NO SUCH THING as "Radiative Forcing" since it reqires a COLD Atmosphere HEATING a Warmer Earth.

YOU, despite your LYING statement:

"That is, THE ATMOSPHERE HELPS THE SUN WARM THE EARTH, even though it's significantly cooler than the surface. This is a scientific fact. There are not just thousands, but many millions,perhaps
billions, of measurements that support this."

CANNOT POST even "ONE" Measurement to support YOUR OBVIOUS LYING STATEMENT !!

What a HOOT!

Once again you have PROVEN that YOU HAVE NO CLUE about ESTABLISHED SCIENCE or ACTUAL MEASUREMENT
----
EXACTLY as I PREDICTED HERE:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

YOU and the AGW "TRACK TEAM" have had collective Panic Attack, crapped their pants and have ALL RUN FOR THE HILLS !!!

The AGW CULT is just SO PREDICTABLE when one EXPOSES THEIR collective LIES by revealling the TRUTH.

The Normal People reading Topix have WITNESSED that my PREDICTION is TRUE and have now seen ALL the AGW CULT in ACTION...AGAIN.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31291 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what, SUXObama? I don't CARE that much what the sun's surface temperature is. As I've posted before it's ~6000º K, & that's good enough for me for now.
You're talking to the wrong guy...blah blah
By using 6000 K for the Sun Temperature you have admitted that the AGW Sun Temperature of 5778 K is a FRAUD.

GOOD FOR YOU!

Let's use your 6000 K temperature for the SUN and findout what the temperature of a Black Body Earth, albedo = 0, no atmosphere, it will produce.

Equation Used (the same a the AGW "scientists" use)
TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D)))^0.5)

where:
TE = Temperature of the Earth Surface in K
TS = Temperature of the Sun (6000 K)
Rs = Radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters)
D = Distance between the Earth and Sun (1.50 X 10^11 meters)

Results (Black Body Earth, albedo = 0, no atmosphere)

TE = 289.38 K
TE =+16.23 deg C !!
----------
That means that the addition of an ATMOSPHERE and ALL OTHER FACTORS has COOLED THE EARTH SURFACE to +16 deg C !!!

It also means that Trenberth and ALL the REST of the AGW "scientists" are PROVEN FRAUDS and LIARS since they HAVE repeated OVER and OVER again:

Greenhouse Effect
"If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...

The AGW "scientists" have FRAUDULENTLY LOWERED the temperature of the SUN to 5778 K to get a FRAUDULENT TE = 5.3 deg C.

Then they use the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" where HEAT FLOWS from a -20 deg C COLD Atmosphere to a Warmer Earth to produce a +15 deg C Earth Surface.

The Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" DOES NOT EXIST because:

1) It VIOLATES The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (along with OTHER Laws of Science)

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow
spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

2) Quotes:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.— Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.— Karl Popper

3) There is NOT:

- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH
- In fact, EVERY MEASUREMENT EVER DONE, PROVES that THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE CANNOT "HEAT-UP" A WARMER EARTH
----------
You and your AGW CULT MEMBERS are the same as ANY OTHER CULT and REFUSE TO ACCEPT the TRUTH about Real Science and Real MEASUREMENT PROOF.

Instead your CULT MENTALITY requires that YOU ACT EXACTLY as I PREDICTED HERE:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

YOU and the AGW "TRACK TEAM" have had collective Panic Attack, crapped their pants and have ALL RUN FOR THE HILLS !!!

The AGW CULT is just SO PREDICTABLE when one EXPOSES THEIR collective LIES by revealling the TRUTH.

The Normal People reading Topix have WITNESSED that my PREDICTION is TRUE and have now seen ALL the AGW CULT in ACTION...AGAIN.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 7 Christian Denominations With Most Conservativ... 43 min Earthling-1 17
Face facts: Climate change is unfolding as pred... (Sep '10) 49 min Earthling-1 24
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Earthling-1 6,509
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 5 hr litesong 2,233
News Four things to know about global warming 14 hr IB DaMann 1
News Obama to Mandate Steeper Emissions Cuts From US... 16 hr Earthling-1 6
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) Mon Earthling-1 34,407
More from around the web