A Single Graphic that Destroys the AGW Climate Cult Narrative

[Threegoofs]

View attachment 67536197

Did you know that CO2 comprises less than 1% of the earth's atmosphere? I bet most of you dont.

Since human CO2 emissions tops at 0.0016% of the total atmosphere, the climate cult wants us to believe that is somehow causing all extreme weather events in every single part of the world. Only an idiot would believe such an absurd hypothesis.

Feel free to eat .04% of your body weight in arsenic and let us know how it goes for you.

 

[Threegoofs]

Imagine your life without it you probably wouldn't have gone to school and learn how to use the written word if you had to be carried there by horses

We know, for some of us, it took, and we understand how science works.

For others, not so much, apparently.

 

[Buzz]

The majority of the science community disagrees with the lies posted about the temperature following CO2 coming out of the ice age.

You have no clue what the majority of the science community believes.

I do not like using blogs for a source,

But here you are citing two blogs when you automatically dismiss everyone else's arguments if they cite a blog. Damn, Lord... you are such a hypocrite.

but these two have a good explanation:

From WUWT?? Are you kidding? Have you forgotten about all the numerous times Jack Hayes used to cut and paste WUWT's BS and how it was routinely debunked?

You even once said this about WUWT:

WUWT should not be automatically trusted as to what they say.

And here you are now citing a known denialist propaganda website to push your denialist beliefs. But to be fair, here is the rest of that quote:

However. Almost every WUWT post is accompanied with very good source material. I go to the source material, and make up my own mind.

So... what are the sources given by these two blog posts?

A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach There’s a new study entitled “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”, Shakun et al. (pay…

wattsupwiththat.com

The Shakun Debacle - Temperature or CO2 Leads? | Friends of Science

1

friendsofscience.org

WUWT has no source other than a known denialist blogger's opinion. And the second blog cites nothing but more blog posts and WUWT. No peer-reviewed and published science other than the study being attacked. So much for these two blogs providing good source material.

Take it for what it is.

Yes... we will . It is nothing but denialist lies and misinformation.

I have shown several times in the past how Skeptical Science misrepresents the science.

All you have ever shown is your biased opinion. I have never seen you actually prove them wrong.

I have not found any faults in WUWT, though I am sure there are some.

You have been shown that WUWT is wrong numerous times.

Again. I rarely post a blog. I prefer actual peer reviewed papers.

The fact of the matter is that you rarely post much of anything to back yourself up. And on those rare occasions that you do, it rarely backs you up.

I have the Shakun et al 2012 paper in front of me. It is paywalled, but I subscribe to nature.

Yes... we all know, you pay for a subscription to Nature to make yourself look more informed than you really are.

The two references I linked above are better at exposing the fraud than I am.

Neither of your blog posts expose any fraud.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have no clue what the majority of the science community believes.

But here you are citing two blogs when you automatically dismiss everyone else's arguments if they cite a blog. Damn, Lord... you are such a hypocrite.

I specified I rarely cite logs, and did so for informational purposes. It was in response to a blog. If you believe the Skeptical Science blog has merit without reading the reasons in the other two, that is your bad.

From WUWT?? Are you kidding? Have you forgotten about all the numerous times Jack Hayes used to cut and paste WUWT's BS and how it was routinely debunked?

You even once said this about WUWT:

Skeptical Science, are you kidding me?

That is proven over and over to be lies on top of lies.

 

[Lord of Planar]

have a read of a recent paper:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078758

 

[Threegoofs]

I specified I rarely cite logs, and did so for informational purposes. It was in response to a blog. If you believe the Skeptical Science blog has merit without reading the reasons in the other two, that is your bad.

Skeptical Science, are you kidding me?

That is proven over and over to be lies on top of lies.

LOL

By who?

You?

LOL

 

[Threegoofs]

have a read of a recent paper:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078758

And no doubt you interpret it absolutely incorrectly.

 

[Buzz]

I specified I rarely cite logs,

You rarely cite anything at all! So not citing blogs is nothing unusual. But when you do it, you act like it is perfectly OK for you to do so. But when others do it, you automatically disregard their arguments because it was based on a blog. You are a hypocrite. Don't deny it.

and did so for informational purposes.

Informational purposes??



No... you are just pushing denialist lies and misinformation. Don't lie.

It was in response to a blog. If you believe the Skeptical Science blog has merit without reading the reasons in the other two, that is your bad.

Skeptical Science, are you kidding me?

No... Not kidding. Skeptical Science is a blog that is well-known for citing actual peer-reviewed and published studies. That is why you can never prove them wrong.

That is proven over and over to be lies on top of lies.

No, it isn't. And I challenge you to prove that it is. We both know you won't prove Jack.

 

[Buzz]

have a read of a recent paper:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078758

From your cited study:

Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences(such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present day and future climate.

Doesn't this agree with Shakun et al?

You didn't even read all of it... did you?

Oh... and that study is over 20 years old.

You are just making a fool of yourself again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

From your cited study:

Doesn't this agree with Shakun et al?

No, you have it wrong.

You didn't even read all of it... did you?

Yes, I did. Why do you constantly ASSume, when you don't comprehend?

Oh... and that study is over 20 years old.

Yes, I tought it was 2023. I think the link that brought me there had the 2023 on it. Age doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with the methodology, if you think there is, please explain.

Shakun used a method that other scientists disagree with in the way the data was used. Studies oven older show this same correlation where temperature lead CO2 by about 800 years, until man started burning things in mass quantities.

You are just making a fool of yourself again.

Please stop speaking into the mirror.

Jesus. Why is it so hard to comprehend?



They are using Argon for temperature and CO2 in the ice cores. shifting the timescale between the two and they correlate very well with Argon leading CO2 by 800 years.

Notice the top x-axis vs. the bottom X-axis.

Here is one major problem with Shakun. Warming started far earlier than CO2 rises. Look at the two red lines I added. The Sea level started to significantly rise before CO2 started to rise, as most the warming is in the form of melting the ice. Little if any temperature is seen from this accumulation of heat (poorly dubbed warming).



Are you aware that it takes as much heat to melt zero degree C ice to zero degree C water as it does to raise the temperature of water by 80 degrees C?

My God man. use your head.

Yes, the actual temperature on the global scale drops, but this I will assume if from the dynamics that include more cloud formation blocking the sun in the already warmer regions than the poles.

The fact is, the warming started where the ice is, and the ice is not starting to melt from CO2 forcing.

Buzz. I get sick and tired of you claiming I am wrong, when you are not understand what is happening in science.

Please stop.

Make sure you are correct before making invalid claims please.

 

[Threegoofs]

Hilarious that the guy insisting people be correct doesn’t even know how old his reference was in the paper he ‘read’ where the date is literally freaking printed ON EVERY PAGE.

Nothings changed in this sub.