"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"

[Dawlish]

So catchy! But I'd like to give the opportunity to deniers to say what is probably causing the warming from 1860, 1880, 1900 but no cheating deniers; it has to be backed by a body of research and peer-reviewed publications*.

Off you go round the Internet then........

*No asking questions in return either, or quoting the "burden of proof is on you" as this is science and you've been told clearly there is no proof and never will be, or deflecting to talk about cooling from 1998 (because you weren't able to explain Spencer's graph from 1979; you've had plenty of chance to explain that one, but you failed quite miserably), or avoiding this, or it just means you have no idea and the mantra sticks like tar and feathers to you.

[Tunderbar]

It can't be CO2 so it has to be something else.

Trace amounts = trace effects.

Unless you have some new physics you want to share with us. I wait
patiently for your science.

[DESMODUS]

Yes but has there really been any warming ? is it just a data
artifact ? the surprise is that there has been so little temp change
as if you look at the temp record for the last 2 m years there have
been huge changes often over a decade the real question is why is our
current climate so stable !- DESMODUS

[Last Post]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:30:42 AM UTC-5, Dawlish wrote:
> So catchy! But I'd like to give the opportunity to deniers to say what is probably causing the warming from 1860, 1880, 1900 but no cheating deniers; it has to be backed by a body of research and peer-reviewed publications*.

Ø —— Poor Dawgie, He dreams of warming climate
chnges in a mere 40 years following the end
of the Little Ice Age.

Of courese the current climate period began
2000 years ago.

Your Hero Dr Mann has clay feet and his
base hypothesis has gone down the shit chute.
Are you going down that chute with him?

> *No asking questions in return either, or quoting the "burden of proof is on you" as this is science and you've been told clearly there is no proof and never will be, or deflecting to talk about cooling from 1998 (because you weren't able to explain Spencer's graph from 1979; you've had plenty of chance to explain that one, but you failed quite miserably), or avoiding this, or it just means you have no idea and the mantra sticks like tar and feathers to you.

Ø —— ROTFLMAO
You've lost and lost badly. CO2 does not
fly in the air any more than do you. It has
zero thermal effect any more than you do.
The weather, she is cooling, and with it the
climate.

Methne has been claimed to blow up in
flames but most of it has been plowed with
the fertilizer.

The poor climate scientists are desperate for
something to publish but Trenberth and the
IPCC cabal will only permit articles following
the IPCC line. But the seas are not rising, nor
are they being acidified. Typhoons and
tornadoes are in. In another year coal will be
in and jackasses like li'l Dawly will not know
where to turn.

[Claudius Denk]

On Nov 13, 1:30 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dumbish:

Claudius Denk:
Dumbish, people like you bring me to suspect
that there must be thousands of people in
prison for crimes they didn't do and thousands
of criminals running free. If I was on trial for a
crime I didn't do and I looked across the
courtroom to see you sitting amongst the jury
I would be very afraid.

[James]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b7f0399-2f89-4b97...@googlegroups.com

Nobody cares about your convoluted mind wanderings dawlish. Just say El
Ninos and satisfy your stupid, irrelevant questions and go bother
another ng.

[Dawlish]

Not doing well deniers are we? 5 replies from 5 deniers and not one even tries to suggest a reason for the current warming. All have repeated the mantra in one way or another though.

Come on. You *know* it *cannot* be CO2, so you must have evidence it is something else, or you really are basing your ideas on your own belief and opinion.

Really, come on deniers. You should be able to do better. Remember, an avoid is a perfect acceptance that you simply have no idea what is causing the warming. The Internet is out there. Go on; search.

[Tunderbar]

First where is your science that shows how trace amounts of CO2 can
catastrophically alter the globes climate? You forget that the basis
of your statement, that you want us to disprove, hasn't been proved.

So quit wasting band width and show us the "settled science".

[Dawlish]

errrrrrrr. Here. You've only been shown it *at least 20 times* and you have learned precisely *nothing*.

If you have the ability, read this and disabuse yourself of the notion that "trace" amounts of CO2 cannot alter the world's climate in drastic ways.

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf

All you can probably be sure of from me showing tundy this, is that stupid tundy will be back saying exactly the same crap in the future. He has convinced himself that trace amounts of Co2 can only produce trace amounts of warming and no science is going to tell him otherwise.

Such entertainment is pretty priceless and doesn't happen everywhere.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Mommy, where is your science that shows sticking my finger in an
electrical socket is bad?

You did it last week and got shocked.

A week later,

Mommy, where is your science that shows sticking my finger in an
electrical socket is bad?

You did it 2 weeks ago and got shocked.

Etc.

[James]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4971ea6-c9fb-4a84...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com

> On Nov 13, 2:26 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 12:09 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:47:13 PM UTC, James wrote:
>>>> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:3b7f0399-2f89-4b97...@googlegroups.com
>>
>>

>> First where is your science that shows how trace amounts of CO2 can
>> catastrophically alter the globes climate? You forget that the basis
>> of your statement, that you want us to disprove, hasn't been proved.
>>
>> So quit wasting band width and show us the "settled science".
>
> Mommy, where is your science that shows sticking my finger in an
> electrical socket is bad?
>
> You did it last week and got shocked.
>
> A week later,
>
> Mommy, where is your science that shows sticking my finger in an
> electrical socket is bad?
>
> You did it 2 weeks ago and got shocked.
>
> Etc.

You had a strange childhood. The reality overrides the science when you
get shocked. You've never learned.

[Dawlish]

Then why does tundy keep coming back and stupidly telling us that trace amounts of CO2 can only produce trace amounts of warming, when I tell him that the science shows him the complete opposite time and time again?

Notice how deniers like you never offer any criticism to him? Do you believe that trace amounts of CO2 can only cause trace amounts of warming - exactly the opposite of what the NASA presentation and the wholly accepted (totally settled) science of the last 100 years shows? Read this and see. There's no argument with it, but he and you (and deniers) want to believe something different.

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf

Doubling CO2 will cause approx 1.2C of warming. tundy wants it to be otherwise, but he's no idea how it could be. Like you ("another lie" on a different thread) he just doesn't want to accept the science and the truth. That's no great worry to anyone else, but that's why you are deniers and why no-one takes any notice of what you say. .

[Dawlish]

Tundy: surely you can't want to stuff your head up your back passage *again* on this one?

[James]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:66b74855-b86f-452c...@googlegroups.com

Do you still wet the bed dawlish? Just curious.

[Dawlish]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:05:07 AM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

> > If you have the ability, read this and disabuse yourself of the notion that "trace" amounts of CO2 cannot alter the world's climate in drastic ways.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > All you can probably be sure of from me showing tundy this, is that stupid tundy will be back saying exactly the same crap in the future. He has convinced himself that trace amounts of Co2 can only produce trace amounts of warming and no science is going to tell him otherwise.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Such entertainment is pretty priceless and doesn't happen everywhere.
>
>
>
> Tundy: surely you can't want to stuff your head up your back passage *again* on this one?

It is now 10 days on and guess what? tundy has come back to repeat the same nonsense yet again, as predicted.

This is what deniers always do. They spout idiocy, run away, hoping everyone will forget how people made fools of them, then come back spouting exactly the same idiocy and start stamping their little feet when no-one will talk to them about it and laughs at them instead.

The great thing is that it allows me to play denier whack-a-mole. <laughing>

[matt_sykes]

"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2" is an equally dumb
statement.

[Dawlish]

That's *exactly* what you and yours believe.

If there is something which is a more likely scenario tell us, win the Nobel Prize and save the world from possible disaster. You know the mantra half-brain. Sing it with mummy as a bedtime treat. All together now....

"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"
"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"
"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"
"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"
"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"
"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"
"We dont know what it is so it must be CO2"

There. That's better, surely?

[Paul Aubrin]

Poor Dawlish still did not realize how his argument was so weak that it
was actually an argument against him. His posts don't improve, I maintain
his personal negative score, so I don't loose too much time with his
lunacies.

[Dawlish]

What do you loose? The dogs? The rapture?

Mainstream science, accepted by every scientific institution and every National Science academy on the planet is so tough isn't it?

You *know* that they are all going to be wrong, that it cannot be CO2 that is the cause of the current warming and the only defence you have to that is to hide.

So glad your mantra embarrasses you, deniers. And it is so catchy too!:

"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is but it can't be CO2"
"We don't* know what it is but it can't be CO2"


*With respect to the use of the apostrophe in reductions - half brain has always struggled with his use of English (so does pauly "loose", for goodness sake. That's not a typo). Deniers aren't the brightest lights in the box. I'm sure Exeter tech taught him well, but half-brain did not have the capacity to learn what he was being taught. *>))

[Desertphile]

Yes, it is.

--
"Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded
or revised." -- Dr. Carl Sagan

[tj Frazir]

population controle the gov does the oposit of what the planet neads to
live
1 PPM dont sound like much.
The sky is 5.7 quadrillion ton and 1 PPM is 5.7 TRILLION tons.
Mans fuels produce 20 BILLION ton ( 4 billionths ) of the sky.

Earth has 37 billion green acres and 50 billion plantonacres at 45
TRILLION ton year plant mass.

the Sky has 190 TRILLION ton co2 at 270 PPM. Plants use up co2 faster
if more co2 is produced.

Man farms 4 BILLION acres 600 BILLION acres plant mass that converts
1.2 TRILLION ton co2 per year .

Man MAKES 20 BILLION ton co2 and USES 1.2 TRILLION ton co2.

Or man is USING 1000 TIMES MORE CO2 THEN MAN MAKES

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[Dawlish]

pauly has, as usual, run away.

[gordo]

Do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
>

[Dawlish]

He has come back to post, but he's forgotten the idiocy here that he ran away from. Deniers do; but it never changes their mind.

"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2". They say this in all sorts of ways all the time, but they can never explain what else it is, so I've given them an open floor to give their views and got.........nothing.

I asked this in the OP:

"I'd like to give the opportunity to deniers to say what is probably causing the warming from 1860, 1880, 1900 but no cheating deniers; it has to be backed by a body of research and peer-reviewed publications*.

Off you go round the Internet then........

*No asking questions in return either, or quoting the "burden of proof is on you" as this is science and you've been told clearly there is no proof and never will be, or deflecting to talk about cooling from 1998 (because you weren't able to explain Spencer's graph from 1979; you've had plenty of chance to explain that one, but you failed quite miserably), or avoiding this, or it just means you have no idea and the mantra sticks like tar and feathers to you."

Come on deniers. You are constantly telling us it can't be CO2. Every single day you deny the possibility. To maintain that denial, you must have an idea what else it could be.........but you have to satisfy the conditions of the asterisk, as that's how science works. Tell us what you think it is, if it is not CO2 and back that view with a body of science.

[Dawlish]

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:53:57 AM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

Pauly and the rest cower under their rocks while the mantra sounds in their ears.

Not a single one of them can explain what else it could be and back it with science. Not one. But they all believe that CO2 cannot be causing the recent warming (which for some real crazies, hasn't actually happened).

Why? Why on earth do you run away from an explanation which you all should be able to elucidate.

[Dawlish]

tumbleweed. This is why people think deniers are stupid and everyone with an ounce of influence ignores them completely.

Harsh that, isn't it?

[Dawlish]

Well deniers. What is it? Surely you can find something that some people have backed with science.

Or do you actually believe in nothing but what you believe is true? Now that is religious.

[Dawlish]

Explain this deniers. Or ignore this and label yourselves as hypocrites and stupids.

[Dawlish]

Why can't deniers explain this?

[Dawlish]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:30:42 AM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
> So catchy! But I'd like to give the opportunity to deniers to say what is probably causing the warming from 1860, 1880, 1900 but no cheating deniers; it has to be backed by a body of research and peer-reviewed publications*.
>
>
>
> Off you go round the Internet then........
>
>
>
> *No asking questions in return either, or quoting the "burden of proof is on you" as this is science and you've been told clearly there is no proof and never will be, or deflecting to talk about cooling from 1998 (because you weren't able to explain Spencer's graph from 1979; you've had plenty of chance to explain that one, but you failed quite miserably), or avoiding this, or it just means you have no idea and the mantra sticks like tar and feathers to you.

Nothing. You hate this catchy little number deniers, but it's exactly where you are and you cannot provide even a reasonable alternative backed by a body of science.