Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 29, 2017, 05:29:56 PM
Every scientist on earth?

I'm trying to get him to tell us when the sea levels are supposed to rise.  You and I still have that warehouse stocked full of water wings that we need to sell, but the damn thing hasn't hit yet...

Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote.  According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,  as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.


In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.

To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.

The debate is over.

Wrong.  The 97% claim has been dubunked:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807652

QuoteA number of scholars who have previously undertaken studies on the alleged 'consensus' of the human impact on global warming have recently published a paper (Cook et al. 2016) which they claim confirms and strengthens their previous 97% consensus claims. This author rejects their findings and deconstructs both the premise of the relevance of consensus in the empirical evidence-based world of science and finds the claims are in fact 'nonsensus.' Several of the scholars' consensus claims and those of scientific bodies were published prior to the 2013 IPCC Working Group I report wherein it was reported that there had been a hiatus in global warming for some 15 years (to 2012), despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide from human industrial emissions.

When are we supposed to be under water?

Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 05:39:18 PM
Wrong.  The 97% claim has been dubunked:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807652

When are we supposed to be under water?

Debunked?  How is that possible?  The study you just cited was conducted prior to the study I cited.  As I said, it is a newer version with 6 independent studies that all came ot the same result and re-affirmed the first.

Further, you cited an independent study that wasn't peer reviewed and provided no explanation as to why that study had better methodlogy.  WHy?  Cause you agree with it cause it fits your pre-conceived notions.

But again, thats irrelevant, cause the study, if one can call it that, you cited, was done prior to the one I did.

What does this tell us?  It means you never even read the study I cited.  WHich means you deemed it wrong not on any solid grounds, but because you didn't like what it said.

That makes you a joke, the loser of this debate, and someone who imposes ignorance on themselves.


BTW, SOLAR, where did you run off to?

Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote.  According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,  as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.


In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.

To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.

The debate is over.

You do not run this board.   

Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:52:13 PM
Debunked?  How is that possible?

You should read it and become familiar with it.  Granted, you haven't been keeping up with the topic as long as most of us here have, but that's no excuse to be informed on the topic you post about.

Quote
  The study you just cited was conducted prior to the study I cited.  As I said, it is a newer version with 6 independent studies that all came ot the same result and re-affirmed the first.

You don't have a study that proves any consensus.  There's way too many scientists who know it's a scam: http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

Quote
Further, you cited an independent study that wasn't peer reviewed and provided no explanation as to why that study had better methodlogy.  WHy?  Cause you agree with it cause it fits your pre-conceived notions.

You fail again: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/04/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-in-past-3-years-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/

Quote
But again, thats irrelevant, cause the study, if one can call it that, you cited, was done prior to the one I did.

What does this tell us?  It means you never even read the study I cited.  WHich means you deemed it wrong not on any solid grounds, but because you didn't like what it said.

That makes you a joke, the loser of this debate, and someone who imposes ignorance on themselves.

Wrong.  You continue to say that ~%100 of scientists agree on global warming, but that's a complete debunked lie.  The scam, including the entire hockey stick fiasco, has been debunked.  You continue to push a lie that nobody credible really believes.  Michael Mann, Hansen, and the other fools have been exposed and debunked, yet you cling to their lies.

Are you really worried, for example, about sea ice causing oceans to rise?  Or better yet, should we ban carbon?

Quote
BTW, SOLAR, where did you run off to?

His router is broken.  He has to buy a new one.

Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 03:42:26 PM
You can read the studies and answer each question you asked.  I suspect that you cant understand them.

Every single military on Earth agrees with climate change and that it  is man made.  Everyone.  End of discussion.

Every single military?  That's quite a statement.  Are we talking individual military personnel, military units, does this include paramilitary?  Armies? 

Quite frankly, I believe that the global warming hysteria has affected the part of your brain (prefrontal cortex) that has to do with logical thinking.

You can continue to believe what you want and you can continue to read all the hype, but 'climate change' is cyclical. Our planet earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There is current data out there that indicates that the earth has been cooling and some scientists believe that we actually may be entering a mini ice age.

Case in point (and I was just a kid) but back in 1974 there was hype from the CIA that global cooling was going to cause terrorism....warp forward now to 2017 ... according to you "all" the military believes in global warming and poses a threat to national security.  Got it!     Yes, you are right, end of discussion on this for me!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/16/flashback-1974-cia-warned-global-cooling-would-cause-terrorism/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19840-is-global-warming-a-hoax

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/the-global-warming-swindle/

Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 29, 2017, 06:29:07 PM
Every single military?  That's quite a statement.  Are we talking individual military personnel, military units, does this include paramilitary?  Armies? 

Quite frankly, I believe that the global warming hysteria has affected the part of your brain (prefrontal cortex) that has to do with logical thinking.

You can continue to believe what you want and you can continue to read all the hype, but 'climate change' is cyclical. Our planet earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There is current data out there that indicates that the earth has been cooling and some scientists believe that we actually may be entering a mini ice age.

Case in point (and I was just a kid) but back in 1974 there was hype from the CIA that global cooling was going to cause terrorism....warp forward now to 2017 ... according to you "all" the military believes in global warming and poses a threat to national security.  Got it!     Yes, you are right, end of discussion on this for me!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/16/flashback-1974-cia-warned-global-cooling-would-cause-terrorism/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19840-is-global-warming-a-hoax

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/the-global-warming-swindle/

He believes the polar bears are almost extinct.  He's not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer.

This green energy thing is so simply fixed. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. So alternative energy sources are the future. No one with a brain disputes this. The question and the conservative position is and has always been "why not take advantage of all energy uses until alternative energy is viable? Killing coal and oil will not make solar and wind cheaper.

Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote.  According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,  as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.


In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.

To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.

The debate is over.

And, just as the first claim about consensus left out the fact that it was 97% of climatologist WHO ATTENDED THE SUMMIT agree with AGW, your claim base on the newer study just HAPPENS to leave out the qualifier that only Climatologist published in IOP journals are the ones polled for agreement. Hmmm, a study performed by the PUBLISHING COMPANY who determines WHO GETS PUBLISHED! Yea, no bias there.....

AGW is a fucking lie, from front to back.
1: Ice core samples have been shown time and again to be an inaccurate method of deriving atmospheric composition. Examination of plant stomata shows that CO2 levels vary more than ice core samples show, as well as indicating CO2 levels were actually higher than ice core samples show. The "unprecedented" levels of CO2 being measured today, directly, are not as "unprecedented" as AGW claims, because they use poor research methods to derive their CO2 levels. Here is a good explanation of the problems using ice core samples to determine atmospheric composition, as well as other big gaping holes in AGW, with references to the studies being analyzed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

2: The so-called correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, one of the primary foundations of AGW "theory" is also a hoax. First, everyone who knows statistical science knows that correlation does not indicate cause/effect, yet AGW uses the correlation to claim that increased CO2 increases mean global temperatures. Bad science (or lie - take your pick). Second, it has been very clearly established that rises in CO2 levels come AFTER rise in temperature. Since when does cause precede effect? Third, the correlation completely falls apart when studying climatological data older than 1 million years. Ice core data is limited to 800,000 years.

3: The glaciers started melting and retreating over 20,000 years ago - and they continue to retreat today. Studies of previous glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles show this to be nothing unusual. (use any chart you want - in this case even the AGW charts show this to be true.)

4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"

As for your references, referencing news sites and popular lay magazines is not referencing science. It is referencing laypersons describing science - usually filled with vast errors (or deliberate fabrications) in understanding. Reference the actual scientific studies - IF you can. Have you even SEEN a genuine scientific paper? Or are you like every other AGW idiot who debates the issue who has never read a single genuine study themselves, but are limited to what the media has to say about it.

Try these on for size: REAL science, not rag journalism.
Anklin, M., J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, J. Tschumi, A. Fuchs, J.M. Barnola, and D. Raynaud, CO2 record between 40 and 8 kyr BP from the GRIP ice core, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (C12), 26539-26545, 1997.

Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973.

Berner et al., 2001. GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME. American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.

Kouwenberg, 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.

Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.

Esper et al., 2005. Climate: past ranges and future changes. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2164–2166.

Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.

Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.

Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.

Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).

Beck, 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007.

Loulergue et al., 2007. New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr. Clim. Past, 3, 527–540, 2007.

Etheridge et al., 1998. Historical CO2 record derived from a spline fit (75 year cutoff) of the Law Dome DSS, DE08, and DE08-2 ice cores.

NOAA-ESRL / Keeling.

Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2002-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.

Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949.

Royer, D.L. 2006. CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 70, pp. 5665-5675. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031.

Moberg, A., et al. 2005. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-019. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Esper, J., et al., 2003, Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Temperature Reconstruction, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2003-036. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones, 2003, 2,000 Year Hemispheric Multi-proxy Temperature Reconstructions, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2003-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Alley, R.B.. 2004. GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 01:34:07 PM
Well the topic Solar chose was why is Green energy a better source of energy then the alternatives?  It would be helpful if he specified on what he considered green energy, but I'll go by the standard assumptions.

The most obvious reason green energy is a preferable alternative is due to climate change.  For three years straight the Pentagon has listed climate change as the greatest threat to our survival.  (1)  The department of defense agreed saying, "the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.(2)  And in 2014, again from the DOD, ""We are almost done with a baseline survey to assess the vulnerability of our military's more than 7,000 bases, installations, and other facilities. In places like the Hampton Roads region in Virginia, which houses the largest concentration of US military sites in the world, we see recurrent flooding today, and we are beginning work to address a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years."  This is of course a small sampling.  The British Military concurs.(4)  As does the entire European Union, as they released a report saying, "climate change – both in Europe and the rest of the world – was continuing, with "climate-related extremes" such as droughts, heatwaves and heavy precipitation increasing in both intensity and frequency across "many regions.'(5)  A report by the Israeli government also agrees, "The impacts of climate change are evident across the globe," warning it threatens the very survival of Israel.(6)The Japanese government as well is taking strong steps and firmly believes climate change threatens their existence.(7)Even China.(8)  When weighing all of these believers in climate change we should offer the alternative side.  Namely, President Trump believes it is a chinese hoax.


Between 90 to 100% of climate scientists believe that climate change is real and caused by human action according to a new peer reviewed study.  No no no.  Not the old one to which I know you have a response for.  This is a new tighter, peer-reviewed study.(9)  However, we still must acknowledge Trump's argument that it is a Chinese hoax. This study has since been replicated six times with the same figures, between 90-100%.(10)  While a commonly psychotic argument is made that such studies are fraudulently done, which would mean but scientists, and all militarizes around the world for grant money, there is of course as much grant money as disproving climate change as not.  The incentive to lie about the climate is much higher for actual oil companies, etc, who make billions off it, not a professor getting a pathetic grant.  Even Exxon Mobil now believes in climate change.(11) "Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas," according to one study.(12) As does a study by NASA, who also believes in climate change.(13) A 70th study here.(14)Another.(15)Another.(16)  One can literally go on and on and on and on and on.  New documents released show Exon knew about climate change for 30 years.(17)Oh and the last three years were the hottest three years on record, defeating each other one after the other.(18)  Oh and anyone who experiences weather over a 25 year span knows full well it has changed.  Even for the remaining skeptic who thinks himself smarter then the rest of the world, it would certainly make sense to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake, no?  Not to mention fossil fuels, aside from climate change, cause sicknesses, cancer, asthma, etc. (19)

The other main reason to favor green energy is to reduce our dies with child raping tyrants like that in Saudi Arabia.  There for 50 years, we have given money to brutal dictators who kill innocent people and enslave women.  The saudis ideologically are the same as ISIS, fund fundamentalist ideology everywhere,   and make the Iranians look like saints. We wont have to give chemical and biolgical weapons to tyrants like Sadaam Hussein while he kills his own people.  We dont have to treat the middle east like an imperial playground. We could close up shop our 100 military bases in the region, stop supporting monsters and fighting war after war and instead focus on things that matter.  Border protection, education, etc.

Green energy is growing everywhere.  The business opportunities will go to who acts the fastest.(20)  To deny climate change is to openly accept ignorance.  By failing to fully act on climate change the US may go down as the worst country in the history of earth.  What worse way to illegal enter anothers borders then to destroy the earth they live in?  How dare we threaten the earth?  If the US refuses to acknowledge climate change then I hope for the future of man, that one day, our country collapses.  No greater justice would ever happen!

Aw Jeez, you really are gullible, aren't you? I know this was before your time, but Agenda 21 is a culmination of years of Communists trying to kill capitalism and this was the first move on their part with the "Green Energy" Lie! Jump to 2:25, that's when Nancy starts her lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUBwIJWH7ew&feature=youtu.be
Forget the lie that is AGW, that's merely the tool to get you to buy their lie that Co2 is a pollutant, aside from O2, Co2 is the most important gas for our existence, without it, the planet would die, the plants can't live without it.
Forget the claims of sea rise, increased hurricanes, tornadoes, all of which never came to fruition, yeah, it's important you focus on the latest lie and forget all the failed warnings of the past.

Remember when Obozo instituted the "Smart Grid", where every home in America was essentially forced to replace their meter with a govt mandated meter, allowing the govt to spy on your every move within your home.
What, you're just now hearing about this? Not surprised, aside from the AGW scam, this was the biggest news to hit the nation in it's existence and yet not a peep from the leftist media, including FOX.

Anyway, did you ever really wonder why energy prices "Sky Rocketed" under the Marxist? Because if they hadn't, no one would have bought the lie of solar being a grid tied system, a total failure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU Cap and Trade, Carbon Credits, are all part of the leftist scam to seize control of our source of production and cripple capitalism.

Are you starting to see the bigger picture yet? I'll let you absorb that for a moment.

You are a joke.  Go through the articles, explain the flaw in methodology, or you have to be considered the loser.

You were giving 20 sources.  Show me how they are scams.  Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.

Show the flaws in the studies. 

If you cant, you lose.

Keep in mind more people are reading this exchange then you think. 

Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 06:51:23 AM
You were giving 20 sources.  Show me how they are scams.  Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.

zewazir already answered that question:

« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2017, 09:00:26 PM »
As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments.
Governments are behind the hoax because
they see it as a way to increase their control over people,
not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.

Quote from: zewazir on March 29, 2017, 09:00:26 PM
And, just as the first claim about consensus left out the fact that it was 97% of climatologist WHO ATTENDED THE SUMMIT agree with AGW, your claim base on the newer study just HAPPENS to leave out the qualifier that only Climatologist published in IOP journals are the ones polled for agreement. Hmmm, a study performed by the PUBLISHING COMPANY who determines WHO GETS PUBLISHED! Yea, no bias there.....

AGW is a fucking lie, from front to back.
1: Ice core samples have been shown time and again to be an inaccurate method of deriving atmospheric composition. Examination of plant stomata shows that CO2 levels vary more than ice core samples show, as well as indicating CO2 levels were actually higher than ice core samples show. The "unprecedented" levels of CO2 being measured today, directly, are not as "unprecedented" as AGW claims, because they use poor research methods to derive their CO2 levels. Here is a good explanation of the problems using ice core samples to determine atmospheric composition, as well as other big gaping holes in AGW, with references to the studies being analyzed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

2: The so-called correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, one of the primary foundations of AGW "theory" is also a hoax. First, everyone who knows statistical science knows that correlation does not indicate cause/effect, yet AGW uses the correlation to claim that increased CO2 increases mean global temperatures. Bad science (or lie - take your pick). Second, it has been very clearly established that rises in CO2 levels come AFTER rise in temperature. Since when does cause precede effect? Third, the correlation completely falls apart when studying climatological data older than 1 million years. Ice core data is limited to 800,000 years.

3: The glaciers started melting and retreating over 20,000 years ago - and they continue to retreat today. Studies of previous glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles show this to be nothing unusual. (use any chart you want - in this case even the AGW charts show this to be true.)

4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"

As for your references, referencing news sites and popular lay magazines is not referencing science. It is referencing laypersons describing science - usually filled with vast errors (or deliberate fabrications) in understanding. Reference the actual scientific studies - IF you can. Have you even SEEN a genuine scientific paper? Or are you like every other AGW idiot who debates the issue who has never read a single genuine study themselves, but are limited to what the media has to say about it.

Try these on for size: REAL science, not rag journalism.
Anklin, M., J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, J. Tschumi, A. Fuchs, J.M. Barnola, and D. Raynaud, CO2 record between 40 and 8 kyr BP from the GRIP ice core, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (C12), 26539-26545, 1997.

Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973.

Berner et al., 2001. GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME. American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.

Kouwenberg, 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.

Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.

Esper et al., 2005. Climate: past ranges and future changes. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2164–2166.

Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.

Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.

Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.

Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).

Beck, 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007.

Loulergue et al., 2007. New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr. Clim. Past, 3, 527–540, 2007.

Etheridge et al., 1998. Historical CO2 record derived from a spline fit (75 year cutoff) of the Law Dome DSS, DE08, and DE08-2 ice cores.

NOAA-ESRL / Keeling.

Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2002-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.

Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949.

Royer, D.L. 2006. CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 70, pp. 5665-5675. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031.

Moberg, A., et al. 2005. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-019. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Esper, J., et al., 2003, Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Temperature Reconstruction, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2003-036. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones, 2003, 2,000 Year Hemispheric Multi-proxy Temperature Reconstructions, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2003-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Alley, R.B.. 2004. GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.

No sorry child.  Whatsupwith that isn't a source.

Please cite peer-reviwed studies and recent ones.

You think that I think you know more then 90% of climate scientists?


For the guy who said militaries are run by governments you are essentially asserting that every government is involved in the hoax.  If you had read the articles, you would notice these studies were conducted by the military, not the civilian government and they claim to their own conclusion, including the pentagon.

Clearly, nobody here is a christian.  Cause the evidence for Jesus is a pittance of the evidence for climate change.

As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.


Bahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahha.  Can you please provide evidence when all these governments came together to agree to that?

Essentially, you are left with NWO type of conspiracy.  You are no better then the people who think Sandy hook was false.


Take what you wrote below for example.  Nobody doubts there are weather patterns outside of our control.  Its the speed and brevity of this one combined with its correlation to fossil fuels, now replicated in studies so many times its boring.

I Live in New york.  I am 27.  The difference between climate in my life is so utterly obvious.

But even if you chooose to be a moron and pretend you know half a shit what you are saying, I ask, do you not believe fossil fuels cause cancer, asthma, etc?  Is it not best to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake?

What about reliance to the middle east?


Carbon tax dollars?  In America, oil companies get subsidies.  You are an absolute joke and the pathetic things you posted in no way have any bearing on what I did, not to mention none of yours are within the last 6 or 7 years.



4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"
Many of the articles you cited were cited in the studies I posted.  Thats how scientists work.  You simply did not read through all my sources and cant be taking seriously.