Look it up. I've told you more than once how we know the extra CO2 is from fossil fuel burning. Now you're just being intentionally stupid. Is it true you will grab the hand of the devil before admitting being wrong? Is there ANY evidence that would suit you? I don't think so.
no you are the idiot.... its like filling up a bathtub with hot and cold water and plenty of water goes over the side. it does not matter if some of the water was hot and some was cold. The earth seems to decides how much goes over the side and what size the tub is.
you are a clown. let me restate this... you are arguing more co2 causes warmth.... I am arguing that the datas seems to show more warmth precedes more CO2. I have data... you have nothing but conjecture and you are too dense to understand it. We are dealing with big systems here... not 3rd grade blocks. You keep arguing like a 3rd grader.
Again, what the fuck are you talking about? No awkward analogies are needed to understand this very simple concept that seems to elude you.
Just came across this. This may help explain jem's position. " If you have a very strong prior existing belief, chances are it s going to exert a strong bias on how you select and react to evidence on the subject. In the ideal rational world with loads of expertise and time on your hands, that wouldn t matter when you came across research. If you were interested in the issue, you would carefully assess the biases and strengths of new research, with an equally careful assessment of the existing body of research. You wouldn t make up your mind about the current state of knowledge till after this systematic assessment was done. But that s not what it s like, is it? In the real world, what we already believe often determines whether we even read something at all. And if it reinforces our belief â Ha! See? I knew it! More proof! we might whizz off an email or a tweet without more than a brief skim of the abstract (or even less). But if research challenges beliefs we hold dear, we might tear the challenging article to pieces. We tend to look for methodological weaknesses in a way that we don t do if we agree with conclusions. This selective skepticism is how we deal with a world of too much information and the confusion it could keep us in. But it can lead us badly astray. It s one of the ways that sacred cows get to be sacred cows: not looking too closely at welcome news and energetically discounting inconveniently disquieting results. When results inconveniently emerge that challenge orthodoxy, scientific controversy is inevitable." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...al-go-to-the-heart-of-scientific-controversy/ Of course one could argue that this is equally true of me. However this is where being a liberal (and in this case, having an education in the pertinent science) is an advantage. Liberals are more accepting of new information and less reluctant to change than conservatives are. Thus are less likely to get stuck into old modes of thought. Most likely jem formed his opinion on GW many years ago, and being the conservative he is he ain't about to change it. And being a lawyer he's learned vehemence of argument and not truth is the most important thing. Frankly I'd love to be proved wrong here.........................................................I think.
At the 43rd parallel north. It's 4 to 5 weeks beyond the frost free date. Some uncovered plants are now showing frost damage. Too late to replant now. Record lows again. I need a greenhouse now i guess. Can't wait for the greenhouse effect to kick in. Everyone should learn or relearn how to grow their own food. This is still an interglacial warming period within the Ice Age. A 2 degree drop in average temperature will cause famine as it did during the Little Ice Age.
OK, how about this. I agree, I always have. Generally the past record shows temps leading CO2. Can you agree the historic temp cycles were accentuated via the greenhouse effect of the CO2? That is, the CO2 lead them higher than solar alone would account for and when the CO2 was reabsorbed the temps decreased more than solar decrease alone would have caused. Do you have any problem with that?
I think I saw you on that TV show "Doomsday Preppers" ! Was that you? You didn't read that info at the NOAA site did you? Why oh why can't you read? Is it because of the chem-trails?