Senators botch facts on climate during free speech attack

This week our civil rights were placed under direct attack on the floor of the U.S. Senate. 

Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse led a small group of Sheldon Whitehousesenators who attacked a number of free-market think tanks for having the temerity to correct them on “climate change” science and policy.

These senators offered a resolution condemning the think tanks for speaking out, calling for them to “to cooperate with active or future investigations.”

Fortunately, these senators comprise a minority fringe in the Senate, yet their efforts to chill free speech is dangerous and must not go unchallenged.

CFACT President David Rothbard joined with the heads of twenty-one organizations who jointly fired off a powerful letter to the senators opposing this misuse of the their power.  “Your threat is clear” the letter states, “There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.”  You can read the full letter at CFACT.org.

CFACT monitored what these senators said on the record, and came away surprised at how biased, shallow and flat out wrong was their understanding of the facts surrounding the climate debate.

Senator Whitehouse was particularly egregious.  He repeatedly cited as his sources not scientific literature, nor the mainstream warming-compliant press, but rather such radical outlets as DeSmog Blog, the socialist magazine Mother Jones, a book entitled Poison Tea, and climate campaign and attack sites like Media Matters, Conservative Transparency Project, and Sourcewatch

Whitehouse just read the climate-left’s propaganda directly into the record and treated it as gospel.

If this is the best these senators’ aids can do to inform them about climate science and prepare their remarks, the senators and their constituents are very poorly served.  Yet this would explain the torrent of smugly presented, unscientific whoppers they brought forth.

New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen stated that “rising temperatures are affecting our tourism, our outdoor recreation and our agriculture industries and we’re experiencing an onset of negative health impacts and increases of insect borne diseases, lyme disease is one of those, all of which can be tied to the effects of climate change.”

Really, Senator Shaheen?  Not cold enough for you or New Hampshire skiing?  Have the people of New Hampshire forgotten so quickly that the winter of 2008 saw 115.2″ of snowfall — the most in over a century?  Have they forgotten that nearby Boston had its snowiest winter ever last year with 108.6″?  A simple search of NOAA’s historical climate records shows there is nothing abnormal about New Hampshire weather.

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey went over the top stating that anyone under the age of 31 “watching the Senate floor tonight has never experienced in their life a month whose temperature was below the 20th Century average.”  Could the Senator’s staffers not be bothered to check? NOAA data reveals that the people of Massachusetts experienced many recent months with temperature below the 20th century average.  March was below average three times in the last five years.  That’s just March!  That’s the government temperature data fiddled and adjusted with to make it seem as warm as possible! Three of the last five Januaries and Februaries were below average in Massachusetts and two of the last five Aprils were below average as well.  The data goes on and on.

Senator Martin Heinrich said that, “in New Mexico we are already seeing more extreme and prolonged drought conditions, larger wildfires, increased flooding. This is the reality now, not at some far off date in the future, and the longer that we wait to act the more difficult and more expensive the solutions will be.”  Can the Senator be unaware how little temperature has varied over the last century?  It was certainly not enough to meaningfully alter drought, fires and floods – all of which are historically normal according to the data.

Likewise Senator Gary Peters of Michigan intoned that we have experienced “dramatic changes in weather.”  He is apparently unaware that today’s weather is historically normal.  Claims that today’s weather has become more extreme are propaganda talking points unsupported by science or history.  Take a look at the report debunking the extreme weather scare that CFACT’s Marc Morano prepared for the UN climate summit in Doha, Qatar.

Climate models consistently project a warmer world than real-world measurements record.  These Senators are either unaware of this fact, or want the rest of us to be.  How’s that for denial?

The sorry truth is that the radical Left chose “climate change” as its latest rationale for taking control of our energy supply and economy.  Climate campaign organizations continually misrepresent and exaggerate the facts about the climate.

It is incumbent on those of us in touch with the facts to correct the record when we see it distorted and present what, in our opinions, are better-founded public-policy recommendations. 

If Senator Whitehouse and company succeed in stifling the climate debate it will guarantee the inaccuracies and exaggerations of the climate campaign will go unchallenged.  Useless and wasteful freedom and economy-crushing public policy will be the result.

That’s why our Founding Fathers wrote free speech into our Constitution. 

So nice try Senators. But we are not intimidated. We will not be silenced.

________

This article previously incorrectly listed Senator Bill Cassidy (LA) in place of Senator Martin Heinrich (NM).  We believe the error was due to an incorrect C-SPAN caption, but regret the error however it came about.

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • ScienceABC123

    This is what we get when we elect people who can’t make it in the real world where bad decisions have consequences.

    “When being a politician became a career choice, we lost the Republic.” – ScienceABC123

    • CB

      “This is what we get when we elect people who can’t make it in the real world where bad decisions have consequences.”

      Agreed!

      What consequences might come of believing someone who’s paid to lie to you about threats to your well-being?

      “A group named Donors Trust has been funneling far more money than ExxonMobil ever did to climate denial groups, but because the source of the funds remains largely hidden, the public has been unable to pressure the donations to stop as they did with Exxon. A small portion of Donors Trust’s funding was recently revealed by the Center for Public Integrity, yet even that small portion has significant ties to the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel interests… The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) received over $4 million from Donors Trust from 2002 to 2011”

      mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/28/how-the-dirty-energy-money-funding-climate-inac/192829

      • ScienceABC123

        That’s a pittance compared to the billions the federal government gives to the climate change alarmists.

        • BigWaveDave

          It is even less than a pittance.

          We know there are trolls being paid to push the AGW BS and quash dissent,

          Is there even anyone being paid to post against it?

          • Dano2

            You can’t show eh-gee-dubya BS.

            Not one byte.

            Best,

            D

            • Well Done

              You’re doing a great job of being incoherent, Dano2. No point trying to make any sense of you.

              • CB

                “You’re doing a great job of being incoherent”

                Parody of the incoherent does tend to appear incoherent…

                You could prove AGW wrong right now by producing the experiment that proves greenhouse gasses are transparent to infrared radiation.

                Can you do that, traitor?

                “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

                missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

                • Brin Jenkins

                  I recall that 200 years ago a us physicist built two test greenhouses with one clad in glass and the other in besalt crystal to block infra red. Both houses showed very similar temperatures so infra red seems to be not the driving force. No I don’t recall the ref it’s just the experiment.

                  • CB

                    “infra red seems to be not the driving force”

                    I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that.

                    Every object above absolute zero is emitting radiation all the time. If it’s hot enough, you can actually see it. That’s why electric stoves glow red-orange. At Earth surface temperatures, we can’t see that radiation, but it’s still there in the infrared frequency.

                    Since there’s no breeze above the atmosphere to take the heat away, emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down.

                    That means any gas which absorbs this radiation must warm the planet.

                    Understand now?

                    “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

                    science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20feb_1

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What you are saying and citing is Science Fiction BS.

                      There is no evidence the surface temperature of Venus is due to a runaway greenhouse effect, nor is there is any theory that suggests it could be.

                      What is your purpose of your incessant promotion of science fiction as a basis for alarm?

                      What solutions do you propose as solutions for the problems you perceive?

                    • CB

                      “What you are saying and citing is Science Fiction BS.”

                      …okay, so say and cite an alternate explanation.

                      If CO₂ doesn’t warm planets, why is Venus hotter than Mercury, despite being farther from the sun?

                      …or did you think you could just shout “BS!” at a fact, and that would make it go away?

                      “100% opacity of the atmosphere to IR in the CO₂ absorption bands — even IF it existed — would not prevent a lower atmospheric warming tendency (and upper atmospheric cooling tendency) in response to further increases in CO₂. This is why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead…the atmosphere is so strongly radiatively insulated against loss of IR to space that the temperatures climb until radiative energy balance is achieved. Models have quite adequately explained the temperature profile on Venus with the known atmospheric composition, just as they explain the temperature profile here on Earth.”

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “If CO₂ doesn’t warm planets, why is Venus hotter than Mercury, despite being farther from the sun?”

                      The surface of Venus is hot because of the enormous mass of its atmosphere which pressurizes the Venusian “air” to about 90 times the surface pressure on Earth.. Venusian “air” is a supercritical fluid at the surface. Hot Venusian surface “air” will behave more like a liquid and flow laterally to maintain hydrostatic balance. This keeps the night side nearly as hot as the day side.

                    • CB

                      “The surface of Venus is hot because of the enormous mass of its atmosphere which pressurizes the Venusian “air” “

                      Find a fire extinguisher.

                      Touch it.

                      Is it hot?

                      If pressure is a source of heat, why isn’t the pressurised gas in your fire extinguisher burning your house down?

                      “Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface”

                      newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “If pressure is a source of heat, why isn’t the pressurised gas in your fire extinguisher burning your house down?”

                      Because it isn’t above the ignition temperature of my house.

                      The pressurized gas has already cooled from the temperature it reached while being compressed.

                      Gas heats up when it is being compressed or “pressurized”. The atmosphere near the surface is constantly being compressed by gravity.

                • BigWaveDave

                  Gases don’t need to be transparent to IR for AGW to be wrong. Just because some gases are radiatively active doesn’t confirm there is such thing as a “greenhouse gas”.

                  The mere ability to thermalize and radiate IR doesn’t make CO2 capable of the types of influences as water..

                  Gases that are non condensing and well mixed like CO2 absorbing IR can only slightly affect the atmospheric temperature. The instantaneous increase of the sensible heat of CO2 gets shared with the thousands of times more gas of other species in the mix of cooler atmospheric gas. There is very little influence CO2 can have on any part of surface or atmospheric temperature or behavior.

                  Water on the other hand can store heat as latent heat and transport and release that heat to cooler locations.

                  The volume change coincident with water’s evaporation or condensation is enormous, and significantly affects local pressure.

                  There are effects of solar hydrological interaction , but there are none that have anything in common with, involve or are affected by CO2.

          • Brin Jenkins

            Well certainly no one that I know. I know a few that toe the party line or lose employment, so they keep quiet.

            The same goes for schools in the UK, OFSTED criticise any school that fails to be diverse, teach about same sex relationships and that for O level physics you must know as a fact that “Windmills are Good”. I saw it in large letters in an an O level text book.

            • CB

              “I know a few that toe the party line or lose employment”

              lol!

              Uh huh… so where’s their evidence?

              “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

              climate.nasa.gov/evidence

              • Brin Jenkins

                That has nothing to do with not causing waves because you have mortgage to pay.

              • Brin Jenkins

                CB the very fact that in the Uk university money was made available to investigate co2. Those that were negative fizzed out whilst those that were pro had further grants and positions in the new industry. A few expressed reservations and were censured for it. No one is going to risk employment when they have to pay mortgages. They get on with their bit and disregard what they privately doubt. If you know any salesman they can’t all be selling the best products. They sell on thr good points and divert attention away from the bad, some actually lie and unfortunately it’s the same here.

          • CB

            “We know there are trolls being paid to push the AGW BS and quash dissent”

            lol!

            No, please! Dissent away!

            All you would have to do to prove AGW false is to provide the evidence that greenhouse gasses are transparent to infrared radiation.

            Go!

            “Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation… This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO₂ an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.”

            scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

            • Brin Jenkins

              When a theory is mooted its there to argue and the onus for proof must lie with those supporting it. This has not been proved and as it requires enormous changes are made it’s unlikely to be an easy task. The C02 theory flies in the face of logic by reversing the cause with its observed effect. Name calling and rudeness to doubters will not be effective, Honesty and intgrity are required and I remain unconvinced by what I hear.

              • CB

                “This has not been proved”

                …except it has, sweetheart… over a century ago.

                Did you think proving the science wrong was as easy as chanting “WRONG!”?

                “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

                http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

                • Brin Jenkins

                  Then what is the mechanism for this? What and how is this happening? It’s not absorption as co2 does not store energy

                  • CB

                    “It’s not absorption as co2 does not store energy”

                    …but it does store energy, Brin. It stores it as heat.

                    If you don’t even know the first thing about a subject, why would you have such a strong opinion on it?

                    “Satellite data show that the world seems to be growing warmer. Most scientists think that there is a link between global warming and the rise in greenhouse gases. This is commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”.”

                    http://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMZ3LXJD1E_Earth_0.html

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      The best that is claimed is a delay as it is instantly re radiated. This is not an energy store. At 40.000 Ft over Italy the temp is -40. The ice on Mount Blanc is always there and little thawing like a heating layer of co2 might bring. Anyway it is still illogical that any small effect is going to allow this to drive change when co2 is released by heat and then drive the heating. This is positive feedback that would have destroyed the system millions of years ago. The mechanism is not proven and remains a theory I see as dubious.

                    • jervis121

                      Typical hopelessly indoctrinated leftist troll talk..
                      There is no hope for you – your mind is made up – Doom and gloom is all you want to hear and all you have to look forward to. You all LOATHE success. The success that capitalism facilitates, which in turn is provided by an advanced industrialized society – yes FOSSIL FUEL powered industrialized society, that you and your loony lefty comrades want to destroy,
                      because you all know you will never have anything worthwhile in life, so you want to drag the rest of us down to your level of existence with its destructive and depressive mindset, which your gloomy worldview ensures.
                      All of you are insane…

                      You believe anything you are told in your lefty indoctrination camps (institutions that were once universities). None of you understand anything about science. If you did, you would know that the utter baloney and nonsense your mentors spout on this CAGW (non)issue, has less credibility than the existence of the Easter bunny and tooth faries…
                      None of you even question the obvoius facts – like NONE of the catastrophic events the corrupt and manipulated Obama funded psuedo-scientists promised, have occurred, nor even look likely to ever occur!
                      You just go on swallowing their toxic doom and gloom flavoured kool-aid that you’re all hopelessly addicted to… DOOM and gloom – it seems you and your lot just can’t ever get enough of it!

                      Go back to something you DO understand like ‘gender studies’, or some other equally useless doctrine based upon hatred of others…
                      All lefties HATE people that are better than them…

                    • BigWaveDave

                      And to top that off, the system they are destroying brought the cleanest air our cities have experienced in modern history, and indoor air can be the cleanest since people started living together.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Is the clue in the term seems to be growing warmer according to satilite data? This is hardly proof only a suggestion. Look a pendulum swings with its oscillation decaying through friction into heat and and air restistance or drag. In a clock positive feedback is applied to maintain the amplitude of the swing. Too much positive feedback and the swing would change to a rotation so positive energy needs much care. What you seem to be saying is any minor effect of heat by a minor gas by human intervention will bring about this change, well I disagree that proof of this is present or proven. The negative feedback giving stability is that c02 is a plant requirement and the process of plants gives us food and oxygen. Any increase in c02 has always lagged the heat not caused it.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      CO2 is 0.0004 of the molar mix. Any heat gained by CO2 gets shared with the 0.9996 of other gas species in the mix.

                      Yes, the “Greenhouse Effect” is in publications aimed at scaring kids.

                      But, what theory is there that explains how CO2 can have an effect on surface temperature, especially ocean temperature, beyond those expected from its contributions to bulk atmospheric molar mass and specific heat?

                • BigWaveDave

                  “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

                  If you think there is science that proves that CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the oceans to warm, please either explain how, or quote an explanation of how this is possible and how it has been and can be shown to be true.

                  • cunudiun

                    And after you’re through giving Dave a tour of climate science, CB, please explain to him in the same quick post the Theory of Numbers, so it will not be without meaning when I label him 99.999% idiotic.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Are you claiming you have said something that has meaning? Where?

            • BigWaveDave

              Why? Has IR opacity been proven to trap surface energy in the atmosphere?

              • CB

                “Why?”

                Why dissent? …because you were just complaining about people “quashing your dissent”. If you refuse to exercise the option is that really anyone denying you that option?

                “Has IR opacity been proven to trap surface energy in the atmosphere?”

                Yup, and it’s a fact you already know to be true. Things warm when they absorb electromagnetic radiation. Go outside into the sun if you don’t believe me.

                “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

                climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

                • BigWaveDave

                  Please explain what proves it a fact that IR opacity “traps” surface energy in the atmosphere.

                  Last time I checked, less than 59F at night wasn’t particularly warm and cozy..

                  But 59 F is pretty close to the average surface temperature of the oceans which is regulated by atmospheric pressure.

                  • CB

                    “explain what proves it a fact that IR opacity “traps” surface energy in the atmosphere.”

                    Sticking your arm in the sun and noticing it’s warmer proves that opacity to electromagnetic radiation traps energy.

                    What in the world are you talking about?

                    “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

                    climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “Sticking your arm in the sun and noticing it’s warmer proves that opacity to electromagnetic radiation traps energy.”

                      So what is warming my arm? Isn’t it what I have been saying?

                      If you stick your arm out at night does the surface make it warmer?

                    • CB

                      “what is warming my arm?”

                      The f*@king sun, Dave.

                      When you put your arm in the sun, it warms. This is something 3-year olds have absolutely zero difficulty grasping.

                      Why is the concept so confusing to you?

                      “If the air isn’t trapped, neither is the heat.”

                      What, you mean trapped in a gravity well or something?

                      o_O

                      “The Earth is getting warmer because people are adding heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels.”

                      www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/index.html

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “Why is the concept so confusing to you?”

                      You are the one who is confused. I have always said it is the Sun.

                      Your fiction is that the radiatively active gas molecules within the atmospheric mix aren’t part of the air circulation that transports heat, and that the colder atmosphere warms the surface by radiating IR.

                      Moronically, you all ignore how water vapor actually stores energy as latent heat, and releases it in the atmosphere to keep it warm, and often attribute the effect of latent heat release to “back radiation”.

                      There is very little if any noticeable or lasting effect that humans can ever have on our planet’s interruption of the solar energy. Our ride here is short and insignificant.

                      Using some of the abundant naturally stored solar energy in coal, oil, gas and uranium is by far more prudent, frugal and less regressive than trying to create mechanical processes like wind turbines or solar panels with batteries to accomplish the same thing.

                    • CB

                      “I have always said it is the Sun.”

                      Right.

                      Your arm is opaque to the sun’s electromagnetic radiation, is it not?

                      It does cast a shadow on the ground, correct?

                      If the opacity of your arm isn’t trapping the sun’s electromagnetic energy when exposed to it, why does your arm get hotter when you expose it to sunlight?

                      “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

                      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Please explain what proves it a fact that IR opacity “traps” surface energy in the atmosphere.

                      “Your arm is opaque to the sun’s electromagnetic radiation, is it not?
                      It does cast a shadow on the ground, correct?”
                      If the opacity of your arm isn’t trapping the sun’s electromagnetic energy when exposed to it, why does your arm get hotter when you expose it to sunlight?”

                      Why are you trying to make this about insolation when the subject was IR from the surface?

            • Brin Jenkins

              But how, the action is instant and c02 retains no heat. We have the man made bit of C02 which is small bit of a gas that is 400 parts per million. The slight delay, if at all is the square root of nothing and it’s not even born out by direct observations. Computer simulations are not reality.

              As co2is released by heat how is it also a driver of heating? This is reversing a cause and its effect. This is illogical and suggests association is a proof of causation. I think your CO2 theory needs to be explained in logical detail not me prove the negative.

        • Dano2

          Lookit all the Rolls Royces and Ferrarris them thar climit scientist done drivin! And the hookers and whiskey every night!

          *eye roll*

          Best,

          D

          • BigWaveDave

            The fact you refuse to admit, besides that you are totally clueless about heat, is that you are not just promoting nonsense.

            Your paid participation in a concerted effort to force its acceptance by attacking any source of doubt is a crime.

            • Dano2

              Sure, sure.

              Best,

              D

          • vacmancan

            Boy are you a BRAINWASHED, republican!!! You “simple-folk” are so cute. Thank you.

          • Well Done

            Dumb comment, Dano2. Nobody said climate alarmists are getting rich… there are too many of them for any one to soak up much cash. Keep dividing up trillions and you end up with small incomes for any given liar.

        • vacmancan

          SOURCE???? Or did you just pull that out of your ass???

      • Well Done

        Climate isn’t doing anything it hasn’t done before. ALL the predictions made by climate alarmists have proven wrong.

        Alarmist won’t release either the data or the methodology they used to come up with their “findings”. Nothing scientific about that.

  • Dano2

    Comical hyperbole that can’t stand the laff test.

    Not only was free speech not under attack, but poor hapless Craig makes several demonstrably false statements to make his case.

    Sad!

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2
    • Brin Jenkins

      Dano why not leave your false World of models and check thermometers

      • MiloCrabtreeVII

        Ignore Dano – he’s a well-known and hapless troll.

      • BigWaveDave

        Dano’s supper depends on volume.

      • Dano2

        I responded to an assertion. Try to keep up.

        Best,

        D

        • Well Done

          LOL no need to keep up with you, you’ve been lapped so many times you must be dizzy.

  • Dano2
  • Dano2
    • Onyabike

      Hi Dano, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8abc745fbb4cfd2899dec7e7d26809b2ca3907a457ff53eec1e80fff0a1e98dc.png
      What is wrong with using USDA data for fires? Oh wait…
      Cheers
      OYB

      • Dano2

        Thanks, try a graph of apples for apples when making comparisons.

        Best,

        D

        • Well Done

          LOL Dano2 you’re a dumb punk.

        • Brin Jenkins

          Yes I suppose counting particles in automobile exhaust is good, but MPG would have been simpler and better understood. Of course that’s the last thing some biased folk want isn’t it.

          • Dano2

            Totally intelligent reply. Good job!

            Best,

            D

      • sadatoni

        2016 (1/1/16 – 7/15/16)
        Fires: 29,212
        Acres: 2,422,186

        2006 (1/1/06 – 7/15/06)
        Fires: 63,716
        Acres: 4,231,943

        2006-2015 10-year average:
        Fires: 40,603
        Acres: 3,191,530

        http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm

    • Well Done

      If that’s your best, D, you’re wasting our time posting here. Not your time, ours.

  • Ian5

    What, no Cornwall Alliance?

  • Repel space Damocles swords

    Wamists hide their big panic for (REPELLABLE now*) space superstorms. A Boeing TESTED* Laser Plasma Shield CAN REPEL asteroids and threatening space superstorms, that may blow up all nukes! http://LaserEarthShield.info

  • Brin Jenkins

    Just show the C02 causation Dano. Without this nothing else has significance.

    • CB

      “Just show the C02 causation”

      That was first shown in the 19th century, Brin. The proof that CO₂ causes warming is in the primary infrared absorption band of CO₂ at 667 waves per cm, which is clearly visible from space!

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

      • BigWaveDave

        Explain how 500 ppm or 1000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere could cause any measurable change in temperature of the oceans’ surface or in the atmosphere beyond what is expected due to the corresponding very slight changes in atmospheric mass and specific heat.

        • CB

          “Explain how 500 ppm or 1000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere could cause any measurable change in temperature of the oceans’ surface or in the atmosphere”

          Since you asked so nicely, certainly!

          Emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down.

          Therefore, any gas which absorbs this radiation must warm the planet… and CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation.

          Make sense?

          “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

          earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

          • BigWaveDave

            “Emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down.

            Therefore, any gas which absorbs this radiation must warm the planet… and CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation.”

            No, it doesn’t make sense. The CO₂ will be cooler than the surface and so will the rest of the air molecules around the CO2 that absorbs radiation from the surface.

            The CO2 that receives the IR from the surface quickly shares the energy its gained energy through collisions with other air molecules adding infinitesimal heat to the air, but not enough to make it hotter than the surface and the CO2 makes it easier for the air to radiate to space.

            It certainly does not make sense to say that the Earth would be -18 deg. C. without “greenhouse gases”.

            Some confuse the observation of latent heat released from condensing water vapor with “back radiated” surface IR to provide support for the -18 deg. C myth, but latent heat release is not the same thing as being radiatively active.

            The reason the surface is warmer than the calculated black body temperature for the planet is the hysteresis of the heat stored in the oceans, land and air that all have parts that receive enough energy to reach temperatures higher than average during the day, and store the energy as sensible and latent heat that is released elsewhere, or at night. Parts of the oceans land and air never completely cool before the next day when they are warmed again (the hysteresis).

            • Dano2

              Too bad you weren’t around in the late 1800s to correct the people who studied this phenomenon, eh?

              Best,

              D

              • BigWaveDave

                “Too bad you weren’t around in the late 1800s to correct the people who studied this phenomenon, eh?”

                Why?

                Is there some chance that might have prevented your ignorance?

                • Dano2

                  You would have corrected the scientific, empirical evidence that was based on classical physics, and prevented the cascade of errors by them thar scientist blindly accepting the erroneous (according to you) science of the time.

                  The worrrrrrl-duh! needs your genius. You need to publish the feelings from your Titanic intellect and durn quick!

                  Best,

                  D

                  • BigWaveDave

                    “You would have corrected the scientific, empirical evidence that was based on classical physics, and prevented the cascade of errors by them thar scientist blindly accepting the erroneous (according to you) science of the time.

                    The worrrrrrl-duh! needs your genius. You need to publish the feelings from your Titanic intellect and durn quick!”

                    How would that have prevented idiots and like Al Gore writing sophmorish “research papers” that ignore the properties of water (described in various works by Richard Mollier ca. 1895 – 1906) that I explained; and politicising their irrational fear and passing along their nonsense to you?

                    • Dano2

                      Weak deflection.

                      Correct the egregious error in basic classical physics that your Titanic intellect has exposed. The world needs your wonderfulness – physics is sadly off-track, according to…erm….”your”…uh…argumentation.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What egregious error in basic classical physics do you think I have exposed?

                      All I have exposed is that there are idiots who ignore Thermodynamics while claiming their rational is basic classical physics.

                      Oh, and that there has been a concerted effort to get children to fall for it.

                    • Dano2

                      I’ll take those points on offer:

                      o Greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics (add 5 points for ‘demonstrating’ that it doesn’t work like a real greenhouse) [40points]

                      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

                      Best,

                      D

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What error in classical physics?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Maybe truth hurts.

                    • Dano2

                      Whatever gives you the good feels.

                      Best,

                      D

                  • BigWaveDave

                    Your fantasy lacks realism ca, 1900 AD. One professor in Munich publishes a series of maps of the thermal behavior of water in German. How quickly does global academia respond?

                    • Dano2

                      Build a time machine and go back to the future, Dave. Good, Patriotic Merkins need you to stop th’ creepin soshelizm.

                      Best,

                      D

      • Brin Jenkins

        How does this show cause? All it suggests is an imperceptible delay in escaping radiation. Gravity has a small effect too. When you say clearly visible do you mean detectable?

        • jervis121

          Brin Jenkins,
          Dont waste your time trying to discuss anything with this CAGW indoctrinated leftist troll…
          I left her something to think about above, after that I wil never post a reply to her again. There’s no way anyone could ever sway them from the lies they all believe and worship.

          I have never been able to understand the mindset or ‘reasoning’ of anyone that believes in the AGW fairy tale… I always thought most people were too intelligent to even discuss such nonsense…Sadly, I was totally wrong.
          The scary part is the thought of what the world will look like once these psrasite leftards inevitably get what they want…

          • BigWaveDave

            “The scary part is the thought of what the world will look like once these psrasite leftards inevitably get what they want…”

            Eastern Europe in 1990?

      • Well Done

        Well now, CB, that’s just a lie. Temp charts throughout history show CO2 rise follows temp rise. I’m quite sure you know that, which means you’re full of it.

  • Johnny Jones

    The truth is these politicians are getting paid to tow the line.

    • Brin Jenkins

      And the Warming scientists. How many turkeys vote for Christmas?