BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 4:11pm:


CO2 contributes in a very small way, it certainly doesn't control temperature here on Earth dog breath how many times do you have to be told.

Temperature controls the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and temperature is controlled by our sun, the orbit of the Earth, cosmic rays etc etc.

If you think CO2 controls temperature here on Earth ...PROVE IT..??!!

Ajax wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:


2 links to sites publishing conclusions based on peer reviewed papers.
One site giving a overview based on multiple scientific studies.

google rtcc scientists-confirm-critical-link-between-co2-emissions-and-warming/

google nasa climate evidence.

google planet seed. co2-and-temperature-change

I am unable to post links directly for which i apologise.

Proved to my satisfaction as a engineer with the proviso that its an analysis of a complex dynamic system with partially understood homeostatic mechanism.

If you can provide me two published peer reviewed papers supporting your proposition that CO2 levels are a symptom as opposed to a cause of climate change and I will cede the point.

Thats all I ask.

two reputable peer reviewed articles. Not financed by a petrochemical company or fossil fuel producer. Since in your opinion the science on climate change is so weak that really shouldn't be a problem should it?

I dont even understand why their is a debate. you are using a computer to access this site. The computer functions using processes predicted by physicists and refined by engineers. All this is done using scientific method, a system designed for removing human nuttyness from an evaluation process.

The same scientific method is used for climate analysis

Everyone doubts climate science. Especially climate scientists. The basis of science is to attack an idea until  all weakness and flaws have been exposed.
You then re-hypothesize based on the available data and re-test.

When people cease being able to detect errors in a concept it generally accepted as "true", until proven erroneous.  The more complex an idea the more difficult it is to prove it, and the easier it is to find flaws or inconsistencies in it.
The first scientific link between CO2 levels and climate change was published in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. Over the next 110 years scientists have honed and modified their models to provide a closer correlation between prediction and observation.

After 110 years of global research by Scientists(any of whom would LOVE the acclaim that would come with disproving climate change) no theory has been accepted as plausible other than a CO2 driven climate cycle.
 
Want a Nobel prize and a million bucks? then show me  a alternate theory that satisfactorily explains current climate behavior and correlates with all the terabytes off data that has been collected over the past 100 years.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:


It doesn't matter what peer reviewed papers are saying because the observations vs the predictions have seen these papers sail into the rubbish bin.

If you still pin your hopes on computer climate models that cannot predict tomorrows weather let alone 100 years worth of climate change.

Then my friend you are an alarmist and must obviously be on that gravy train known as AGW.

Ajax wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

Dog Breath am I?

You don't even understand how the green-house effect works: year 9s in high school would laugh at you!

CO2 traps the heat! You don't even know what temperature is 

Science is consensus and that's because it starts with nomenclature!!

So cum get me buddy because we all know you love me long time: the only reason we all come to this forum is to watch me own you over and over and over again 

(..and you love it don't you ya dirty little _____  )