Dear pearly plus one, you posts conveys an implicit stupidity or religious zeal of the deepest ignorance.
Or do you make a statement in such a way as to have deniability and yet provoke?
This is what is reported.
Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings.
The facts show that for about the last decade global temperatures peaked in 1998, leveled and have more recently turned down.
Do you believe what is reported? The fact reported does fly in the face of the expectation of CO2 having some property to drive global temperatures to dire heights. And it is consistent with all know science that interprets CO2 as trace gas has only a trace effect.
You seem to believe that 1 part in 10,000 of CO2 some of which can be attributed to mans use of energy will have a major dire effect of pumping up the global temperature.
The is no property of CO2 that can do this in an atmosphere where 3 plus parts in 10,000 is natural and the far stronger greenhouse gas H20 varies in ranges from 100 to 300 parts per 10,000 over 80 to 90% of the planet all the time.
The real denier of reality, the truly delusional really believes statements like yours quoted below with a reasonable interpretation of what is means to say.
"In this case it's a crowd of global warming deniers deluding themselves. No amount of evidence will ever convince these idiots that the crap we put into the air can change the climate. Which it has btw."
One way I find for me to get a better understanding of what I believe is to discuss ideas with the deniers of reality, and the truly delusional. |
