A question for TerryRC

TerryRC wrote:You then showed Mauna Loa data on atmospheric CO2 and that the increase in atmospheric CO2, while sharp, is not EXPONENTIAL.

No shit, did you figure that out for yourself, or what?

TerryRC wrote: Please note that the human population is increasing exponentially and their CO2 releasing activities may be also. That doesn't mean that it's effect on atmospheric levels will translate into an exponential rise, nor did the scientists claim it so.

Well now, if no one has claimed it would translate into an exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 then what is your reason or "point" for even mentioning such a thing? Your thoughts getting all bumfuzzled again, huh?

And are you also going to deny that the AGWers have been claiming that human activities put 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air annually and half of it stays up there for a hundred years? To wit:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-new-carbon-satellite

Dumbasses, 15 billion tons per year increase would push the Mona Loa readings over the 2 ppm average yearly increase.

And are you going to tell me that the following is mirage, or what?

The planet is heating up and the evidence suggests that human activities are having a significant impact,� Jane Lubchenco said. Jane was the past President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who briefed President Clinton on global warming in July, 1997. The world's leading authority on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a United Nations sponsored organization made up of 2500 scientists from around the world.

They have concluded by consensus that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." They project that global warming will have severe impacts on human health, natural ecosystems, agriculture, and coastal communities.

This evidence supports the common belief that Global Warming is occurring due to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and HFC�s.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-new-carbon-satellite

Well now, if no one has claimed it would translate into an exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 then what is your reason or "point" for even mentioning such a thing? Your thoughts getting all bumfuzzled again, huh?

You were using the Mauna Loa data to show that AGW scientists are making outrageous claims.

They may be, but your argument doesn't really address their claims.

And are you also going to deny that the AGWers have been claiming that human activities put 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air annually and half of it stays up there for a hundred years? To wit:

Some of them are. I'm not sure what the consensus is on that particular subject. We certainly put megatons of pollutants into the air on an annual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that.

TerryRC wrote:Well now, if no one has claimed it would translate into an exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 then what is your reason or "point" for even mentioning such a thing? Your thoughts getting all bumfuzzled again, huh?

You were using the Mauna Loa data to show that AGW scientists are making outrageous claims.

They may be, but your argument doesn't really address their claims.

Typical feminist reply to absolve themselves from any further discussion on the subject in question. SC

And are you also going to deny that the AGWers have been claiming that human activities put 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air annually and half of it stays up there for a hundred years? To wit:

Some of them are. I'm not sure what the consensus is on that particular subject. We certainly put megatons of pollutants into the air on an annual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that.

We have both known that for quite some time now. SC

.

Typical feminist reply to absolve themselves from any further discussion on the subject in question. SC

Sam you made an [incorrect] statement about what ALL AGW scientists are saying, followed by data that looks like it disproves the statement [that you put in their mouths], but really doesn't, in an attempt to discredit said scientists.

When I point this out, you insult me.

Sam, you've obviously been served.

TerryRC wrote:Sam you made an [incorrect] statement about what ALL AGW scientists are saying, followed by data that looks like it disproves the statement [that you put in their mouths], but really doesn't, in an attempt to discredit said scientists.

When I point this out, you insult me.

Sam, you've obviously been served.

Here, Idiotass, read it for yourself, then have your kids explain it to you so that you will understand it, to wit:

Anthropogenic Global warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanic eruptions had a small cooling effect after 1950. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_global_warming

.

Here, Idiotass, read it for yourself, then have your kids explain it to you so that you will understand it, to wit:

Sam, being loud and obnoxious doesn't make one right.

Your above statement is irrelevant.

Face it, scientist vary in their opinion as to how fast this is happening and your Mauna Loa data doesn't support your argument that the scientists are wrong about AGW.

Just give it up.

And an attitude like that is the reason the only job you could find is one of a Public Employee where work ethics, accomplishments and doing something productive are unimportant in "the grand scheme of things".

And an attitude like that is the reason the only job you could find is one of a Public Employee where work ethics, accomplishments and doing something productive are unimportant in "the grand scheme of things".

Ah, Sam. You insult my work ethic and accomplishments because I pointed out that your arguments here are meaningless. How mature of you.

Well, I'm off to go pack for an unproductive 60 hour week on the road surveying for crop and forest pests that could damage or destroy the food you eat and the forests that supply us with valuable resources.

No need to thank me. Knowing I am helping to keep our food and timber resources safe is thanks enough.

Forget it, TRC. When Sam pulls out them big, red letters you know that he has got it figured it out juuuuuust right.