climate deniers effecting science negatively:

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
" the "climate change" theory need to prove their case. .

Its no longer a theory (I assume here you are referring to the greenhouse theory by "climate change" theory? There isn't one "climate change" theory but many unrelated ones ) and you are something like ~20 years or more out of date on that one. Basic physics (which I have formally studied at high university level ) had shown us scientists a long time ago that an increase in atmospheric CO2, whether from man made sources or natural, should cause measurable global warming and that it would be a huge scientific mystery if it didn't! In fact, if it didn't, we would have to through out much of known well-established proven physics including quantum physics (which tells us why we should think CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of infrared. This has also been directly empirically measured and tallies with quantum physics predictions ) and the laws of thermodynamic (because, for starters, we would have to conclude that the heat energy so absorbed either magically disappears or mysteriously magically transports itself out of the atmosphere in what should be a causally impossible way ).

If you don't believe me, I will be willing to spend the long time explaining that basic physics of that to you in fine detail (both the quantum physics aspects of it and the thermodynamic aspects of it and with web links references to both ) BUT ONLY IF, unlike Metal Brain, you have genuine scientific curiosity about this and completely honestly want to know (although he is now completely out of it anyway; hallucinating whole complex conversations that never took place and then accusing me of discontinuing them ). If so, I would try my best to avoid getting into the complex mathematics of it but I am afraid that would mean it wouldn't strictly be a 'complete' explanation -no avoiding that I am afraid.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
"climate deniers effecting science negatively"

What a load of old toffee.

The protagonists of the "climate change" theory need to prove their case. To not accept their delusory concepts is not denial.

What would you consider "proof" of their case?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What would you consider "proof" of their case?

Warning! this might involve time travel! But only if he is as unreasonable as Metal brain. We shall see.

Originally posted by humy
Its no longer a theory (I assume here you are referring to the greenhouse theory by "climate change" theory? There isn't one "climate change" theory but many unrelated ones ) and you are something like ~20 years or more out of date on that one. Basic physics (which I have formally studied at high university level ) had shown us scientists a long time ago that a ...[text shortened]... ould mean it wouldn't strictly be a 'complete' explanation -no avoiding that I am afraid.

"~20 years or more out of date on that one. Basic physics (which I have formally studied at high university level ) had shown us scientists a long time ago that an increase in atmospheric CO2, whether from man made sources or natural, should cause measurable global warming and that it would be a huge scientific mystery if it didn't!"

You are being intentionally vague. Nobody knows what you mean by "measurable". If you mean it can be measured with accuracy prove it. If you mean it is enough to be measured even if it is an insignificant amount then prove it.

Must I repeat myself again? How much? How much warming is it causing? The fact is you don't know and you do everything you can to avoid admitting it. Being vague doesn't make you a smart person. Any idiot can do that.

Originally posted by humy
Warning! this might involve time travel! But only if he is as unreasonable as Metal brain. We shall see.

You are being condescending to him. What did he do to deserve your arrogance? It seems merely disagreeing with queen assumption is enough to earn condescension.

If CO2 was the bogeyman you and other alarmist made it out to be it would be nearly as warm as the Pliocene since CO2 levels are close to the same as back then before man existed. Every rebuttal you have had to this was a failure. Pretending otherwise is just evidence of your arrogance.

You are embracing global warming alarmism like it is your religion. Even the Pope has confirmed it is more of a religious believe than anything else. Debates are not allowed on the corporate news media anymore. Fred Singer will be censored so the holy carbon tax can make poor people poorer so they cannot afford food. The Rockefellers are all for it.

http://www.undueinfluence.com/greenpeace.htm

A carbon tax will just get passed to the consumer. ExxonMobile will not lose profits at all contrary to what some conspiracy theories imply. With coal out of the way ExxonMobile will benefit from it. They are behind the carbon tax agenda.

Foundation Name: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
Abstract: For Global Warming Campaign, which raises awareness of global warming
Amount: $75,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Originally posted by sonhouse
Read this, it is a brief explanation of the refinements of CO2 heating effects, published in 1998. It says the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 360 PPM ATT.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

They are not saying directly it causes heating, it is a scientific study of how CO2 absorbs heat.

http://co2now.org/

This shows the pr ...[text shortened]... on't worry, be happy, suck down a beer and shoot darts. In ten years it will all reverse, right?

Physics cannot conclude how much co2 warms the atmosphere. It is simply impossible. That is why humy is a moron. There are too many factors to conclude that....period!

"This shows the present day concentration, 403.7 PPM, an increase of about 11% in just 17 years,

I guess that doesn't bother you in the slightest."

No, it doesn't bother me. It is not as warm as it was during the Pliocene, not even close. CO2 is clearly not the primary factor causing climate change. If it was we would be trapped in an inescapable runaway feedback cycle of warming right now. This really is proof that CO2 is a negligible factor. I know you don't want to see that, but the old cause and effect theory of Al Gore was wrong. Temps came first and CO2 lagged behind. The ice core samples proved that. CO2 was not the cause, it was the effect. Temps were the cause and that is a fact.

It is amazing to me that self proclaimed scientists ignore cause and effect over and over and over again! It is like some on here are insane. They use the same arguments that were proven to be wrong long ago, just like religious fanatics.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Physics cannot conclude how much co2 warms the atmosphere. It is simply impossible. That is why humy is a moron. There are too many factors to conclude that....period!

"This shows the present day concentration, 403.7 PPM, an increase of about 11% in just 17 years,

I guess that doesn't bother you in the slightest."

No, it doesn't bother me. It i ...[text shortened]... They use the same arguments that were proven to be wrong long ago, just like religious fanatics.

Where is your papers refuting those scientists? Surely you must have written some great papers in Nature or Scientific American?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are being condescending to him.

...something you do all the time to us scientists and by a vastly greater magnitude that just doesn't compare.

What a hypocrite.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Surely you must have written some great papers in Nature or Scientific American?

I just hope he tries and do just that! I mean, can you imagine it!? Him!? the obvious arrogantly-delutional moron nobody with no science credentials that thinks he knows all about science than all us scientists! That would be totally hilarious. He would became a great laughing stock for trying. The first question they will ask him, which will be a totally rhetorical given his immediately apparent complete ignorance of the subject matter and obviously he simply doesn't know what he is talking about, "what are your science credentials". He would have to be arrogantly totally delusional (like he is ) to think anyone would take any of his crap seriously. When they reject his papers as a load of crap (or words of that effect ), he probability just futilely and ineffectively try and verbally insult them just like he does when us scientists reject all his many ridiculous assertions. Such stupid pointless futile effort to insult them would only serve to even further increase their disrespect for him just like it does so for us.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where is your papers refuting those scientists? Surely you must have written some great papers in Nature or Scientific American?

Where are yours?

Originally posted by humy
I just hope he tries and do just that! I mean, can you imagine it!? Him!? the obvious arrogantly-delutional moron nobody with no science credentials that thinks he knows all about science than all us scientists! That would be totally hilarious. He would became a great laughing stock for trying. The first question they will ask him, which will be a totally rheto ...[text shortened]... would only serve to even further increase their disrespect for him just like it does so for us.

There you go assuming again.

Originally posted by humy
I just hope he tries and do just that! I mean, can you imagine it!? Him!? the obvious arrogantly-delutional moron nobody with no science credentials that thinks he knows all about science than all us scientists! That would be totally hilarious. He would became a great laughing stock for trying. The first question they will ask him, which will be a totally rheto ...[text shortened]... would only serve to even further increase their disrespect for him just like it does so for us.

He is a science sycophant, a science groupie, he has his hero's he follows and that hero can do no wrong, that hero is OBVIOUSLY right and EVERYONE else is wrong.