Global Warming will cause a Harsh Winter...wait what..?

[jusplay4fun]

I am not in a "corner." To extend your chess (or boxing) analogy, I command the vast majority of the battle ground. Your mask of sophistry blinds your view of the situation. As stated already, you ignore the preponderance of the scientific evidence.

bad ass = cool emoji...? really? hmmm,.....

btw, MADp, it's not an act.

JP4Fun

it's weird how JP argues himself into a corner.. then acts like he is all bad-ass about what he said...
he even put the "cool" emoji in his on comment.. describing himself..

[NomadPatriot]

[url]But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.[/url]

The above quote cogently and succinctly refutes nearly all your arguments about CO2 levels.
JP4F

----------------

I command the vast majority of the battle ground.

time to teach you something again JUS..
putting URL's around a quote entails you have no clue what you are doing once again...

you have to highlight what you are wanting to make into a quote then hit the QUOTE button.. not the URL button..

glad I could teach you something once again..

I see you are getting the hang of posting videos..
you just need to fine tune your other skills so you can " command the vast majority of the battle ground"..
we cannot have a Commander such as yourself making such .. simple minded.. mistakes...

[tzor]

Check and Mate ... 5 Surprising Scientific Facts about Earth’s Climate

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always
2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans
3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!
4. Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!
5. Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Temperature Control Knob

Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science) is the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He currently lives in Udumalpet, India.

[Dukasaur]

Check and Mate ... 5 Surprising Scientific Facts about Earth’s Climate

No "surprising facts" there. Same old, same old, same old denier hogwash.

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always

Not news. Climate has always changed. Drastic changes, however, are accompanied by mass extinction. The last time the climate changed at this pace, during the "Great Dying" at the end of the Permian, 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species were lost. We don't know exactly how long it took. All we can say for sure is that it was less than 30,000 years. How much less is a matter of some conjecture.

All other warming periods were much slower and gradual than that one. Even so, they typically cause an increase in extinctions.

Short-term cooling periods sometimes come about, like the one that killed the dinosaurs. Long-term cooling periods, like long-term warming periods, come around on scales of tens of thousands of years.

The speed of onset is far more dangerous than the absolute magnitude of the change (although absolute magnitude isn't risk-free, either.) This is the fastest change we know about. Two degrees in two centuries is radical. Are you really willing to risk a mass extinction greater than the one at the end of the Permian? We don't know how bad it might get, but we do know that life is fragile. It wouldn't take much to go from 96% of marine species lost to 100% of marine species lost.

2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans

No shit, Sherlock. Nobody said it was.

3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!

LOL. Did you even follow the links? The authors of the FEE article cherry-picked a comparison with the Mid-Holocene Warm Period and said we have more polar ice than during that period. Again, no shit, Sherlock. The Mid-Holocene was quite a warm time. It was the peak of the 40,000 year axial-wobble cycle.

On the axial-wobble cycle, we should now be in a cooling phase. The temperature should be falling, not rising. The fact that the earth is warming fast during a time that it should be cooling is strong evidence that the anthrogenic changes we have brought about are overwhelming the natural cycles.

4. Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!

Really? This is just one more bit of denialist hogwash that just won't go away. Clifford Kraus started this myth by saying "there are more than 20,000 polar bears roaming the Arctic, compared to as few as 5,000 40 years ago." The trouble with that is, while the 20,000 is reasonably accurate (best current estimate 23,000), the 5,000 is nonsense. It's pure smoke and mirrors. One Russian author in 1956 said there might be 5,000 to 8,000 polar bears in the world. He didn't do any kind of counting, he just took anecdotal accounts from bear hunters and wildly extrapolated from there. Climate change deniers have latched on to the "5000" figure as if it was gospel truth (I wonder why they didn't latch on to the 8000 number instead?) and keep repeating it, despite the fact that its just a wild guess by one man who didn't do any real counting. Even rudimentary attempts at actually counting polar bears didn't begin until the late 1980s.

In the next 40 years or so we'll have much more accurate surveys. But going 50 years into the past, any number was pure guesswork.

5. Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Temperature Control Knob

Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science) is the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He currently lives in Udumalpet, India.

And his "evidence" for this is that "global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated". In fact, the global temperature between 2000 and 2016 did rise dramatically, by 0.6 degrees. So, his "evidence" is just an assertion completely contrary to observable facts:

[jusplay4fun]

Again, first, your lack of command of facts is appalling. And two, get back on track on debate global warming and not use of quotation marks. MADp, you are the commander of only two things: Obfuscation and Sophistry. You keep proving how you cannot debate or even discuss anything intelligently.

Third, for someone you deem unworthy of any more discussions, you are quick to react to things I post. What is the truth, MADp? Are you going to ignore me or not? I think you have again been consistently inconsistent and you try to talk from both sides, and you do that rather poorly. You cannot write in complete sentences and you are going to TEACH ME..? ain't happenin'

Poor MADp; nothing is working for him. No logic, no humor, no supporting evidence, and no men left on base. I PITY THE FOOL...!

[url]But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.[/url]

The above quote cogently and succinctly refutes nearly all your arguments about CO2 levels.
JP4F

----------------

I command the vast majority of the battle ground.

time to teach you something again JUS..
putting URL's around a quote entails you have no clue what you are doing once again...

you have to highlight what you are wanting to make into a quote then hit the QUOTE button.. not the URL button..

glad I could teach you something once again..

I see you are getting the hang of posting videos..
you just need to fine tune your other skills so you can " command the vast majority of the battle ground"..
we cannot have a Commander such as yourself making such .. simple minded.. mistakes...

[NomadPatriot]

The Attention Seeking Sociopath w/ a Superiority Complex thinks he is capable of interacting with people civilly in a debate.....
I already said it was pointless. all he does is constantly attack..

I guess he actually thinks calling a republican names is somehow effective..

just glad I can teach him things..
-->
"

I never said I was smart

[jusplay4fun]

There is no need to repeat myself here; to summarize, it is obvious that MADp is 1) mad; 2) angry; 3) foolish; 4) lacks knowledge; 5) lacks logic; 6) craves attention from others in CC Forums; 7) cannot write in complete sentences; and [JUS to keep this under 10] does not play nice.

Time to take away his toys and send him to his corner where he belongs. Go along, little MADp; go to your corner, until you can learn to play nice and act nice.

JP4Fun

The Attention Seeking Sociopath w/ a Superiority Complex thinks he is capable of interacting with people civilly in a debate.....
I already said it was pointless. all he does is constantly attack..

I guess he actually thinks calling a republican names is somehow effective..

just glad I can teach him things..
-->
"

I never said I was smart

[NomadPatriot]

There is no need to repeat myself here; to summarize, it is obvious that MADp is 1) mad; 2) angry; 3) foolish; 4) lacks knowledge; 5) lacks logic; 6) craves attention from others in CC Forums; 7) cannot write in complete sentences; and [JUS to keep this under 10] does not play nice.

Time to take away his toys and send him to his corner where he belongs. Go along, little MADp; go to your corner, until you can learn to play nice and act nice.

JP4Fun

The Attention Seeking Sociopath w/ a Superiority Complex thinks he is capable of interacting with people civilly in a debate.....
I already said it was pointless. all he does is constantly attack..

I guess he actually thinks calling a republican names is somehow effective..

just glad I can teach him things..
-->
"

I never said I was smart

and.. .. he proves me right.. ..

[jusplay4fun]

Yes, MADp; you did prove me RIGHT, Again. Thanks for that acknowledgement. Now we can move on with life.

JP4Fun

There is no need to repeat myself here; to summarize, it is obvious that MADp is 1) mad; 2) angry; 3) foolish; 4) lacks knowledge; 5) lacks logic; 6) craves attention from others in CC Forums; 7) cannot write in complete sentences; and [JUS to keep this under 10] does not play nice.

Time to take away his toys and send him to his corner where he belongs. Go along, little MADp; go to your corner, until you can learn to play nice and act nice.

JP4Fun

The Attention Seeking Sociopath w/ a Superiority Complex thinks he is capable of interacting with people civilly in a debate.....
I already said it was pointless. all he does is constantly attack..

I guess he actually thinks calling a republican names is somehow effective..

just glad I can teach him things..
-->
"

I never said I was smart

and.. .. he proves me right.. ..

[NomadPatriot]

and he resorts to parroting me..
SAD..

[riskllama]

yes, that is pretty fuckin' sad...

[jusplay4fun]

Yes, it is SAD that MADp cannot discuss Global Warming with intelligence or with respectable logic or even some facts or evidence. He has no idea how to debate and offer refutation. Reading his replies has been a waste of time.

He is now a parrot.

and he resorts to parroting me..
SAD..

[NomadPatriot]

the stalking continues...

[waauw]

[NomadPatriot]

let's just apply 1 portion of co2 per person:

US population - 325 million x3 = 975 million portions

China population - 1.390 billion x2 = 2.780 billion portions


yeah.. that Fair Share sure works itself out swell..

[jusplay4fun]

i would say this map shows the rate of consumption (per capita) and the level of development. Saudi Arabia perhaps uses lots of air conditioning? I D K, really, as I have not researched why they are at 4X.

[tzor]

The problem with that chart is that it groups things by country. If you have a country that is particularly large with one portion living in extremely primitive conditions and a massive urban area living in high technology, the primitive people, living without power or advanced transportation will lower the overall score for the nation. It's sort of like the idea of "carbon credits" allowing that nation to average things out instead of having one area with a low number and other area with a high number.

Both China and Russia are good examples of this. I don't think the people in Siberia are vast emitters of carbon so Moscow's excess is absorbed (figuratively speaking) by the eastern portions of the very large nation.

[jusplay4fun]

The "portion" unit you want to use is Million Tons of CO2:

Emissions by Country
Rank Country Emissions in 2017 (MtCO₂)
Rest of World 10,028
#2 United States 5,269
#3 India 2,467
#4 Russia 1,693

btw: #1 is China at 27.2% at the source cited below

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+emissions+by+country&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS777US777&oq=CO2+emis&aqs=chrome.1.0l2j69i57j0l3.9060j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


And I have already pointed out that 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; 2) the huge amount of CO2 released (emissions) by the burning of octane, as one example of the burning of one hydrocarbon fuel; 3) greenhouse gases cause Global Warming; 4) Therefore, CO2 emissions by man's use of fossil fuels cause global warming, as referenced and validated by Tzor's source: NOAA.
5) ERGO: Global Warming will cause major climate change, as evidenced by the 7 specific portions of evidence that is mostly ignored by Tzor and MADp.

JP4Fun

let's just apply 1 portion of co2 per person:

US population - 325 million x3 = 975 million portions

China population - 1.390 billion x2 = 2.780 billion portions


yeah.. that Fair Share sure works itself out swell..

[NomadPatriot]

the problem is the non-condensable greenhouse gases...

Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:
1) Water vapor (H2O)
2) Carbon dioxide (CO2)
3 )Methane (CH4)
4) Nitrous oxide (N2O)
5) Ozone (O3)
6) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
7) Hydrofluorocarbons (includes HCFCs and HFCs)

most abundant Greenhouse gas is Water Vapor.


-------------------------------

It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.



The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.





If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.




There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.


https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

[jusplay4fun]

The contention that water vapor may be a factor in the Greenhouse Effect does not deny:

1) the fact that the earth is warming (again, the preponderance of the evidence clearly makes this case);

2) Global warming is due to man releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels;

3) Nothing that MADp cites denies either 1) or 2).

4) If you read more of the ACS website, you can read that the above is true. That is posted and cited below my Conclusion.

Conclusion: As I pointed out in regards to Tzor's posts, those who try to deny the human role in Global Warming will selectively cite data to try to "prove" their point of view and ignore data and evidence that support the conclusion contrary to their opinion. The previous post by MADp is more of the same attempt to do such "cherry picking" of isolated facts that SEEM to deny man's role in Global Warming. It is again an example of MADp's obfuscation.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html

Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750. Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic. CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.
These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800). The increases and current atmospheric levels are the result of the competition between sources (the emissions of these gases from human activities and natural systems) and sinks (their removal from the atmosphere by conversion to different chemical compounds--for example, CO2 is removed by photosynthesis and conversion to carbonates). Brief summaries of these factors for several important greenhouse gases are given in Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks with graphics showing the human and natural contributions to their emissions (and sinks).

Bottom Line:
Sorry, MADp, you failed again. Good try, but be more thorough when you do research. AND you earned more Failing grades ("F") for logic, refutation, and for use of evidence.

JP4Fun

[jusplay4fun]

Note that MADp's last post in this thread is only cut and paste and that he failed to interpret any of his data or evidence.

Again, he failed at Basic Debate techniques. One cannot merely a offer a piece of evidence and expect it to speak for itself. One must at least offer some reasoning and interpret that evidence and explain how it supports one's point of view.

Another "F" for MADp. You are doing a good job piling up those "F" grades with impotent attempts to refute the premise that Global Warming and Climate Change is caused by anthropogenic activity.

JP4Fun

[tzor]

2) Global warming is due to man releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels;

This is a good example of the total bullshit of the "argument."
Who killed Caesar?
Well, every senator shoved a knife into him.
Some blows were more serious than others.
So we come to the same bullshit.
CO2 is a factor
"Global warming is due to man releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels."
NO IT IS NOT.
Fossil fuels is a factor that contributes to a factor that influences global warming.
Which comes to the question, how big is that factor and what can man do to change that factor.
(Given the fact that the bulk of these emissions is coming from the Great Empire of the East known as China and those emissions cannot be touched.)

There is an argument to be made to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but the global warming argument isn't it.

[Dukasaur]

(Given the fact that the bulk of these emissions is coming from the Great Empire of the East known as China

Not exactly the bulk. About 9.8 gigatons out of a world emission of about 34, so just shy of 30%.

and those emissions cannot be touched.)

On the contrary, China is on board with reducing carbon emissions and has started to make significant progress. Has it gone as far as the West? No, of course not. Just like in every other technological sphere, it's late to the game and has a lot of catching up to do. The signs are that it is serious about doing so. China is switching power from coal to oil and from oil to nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, and gas. In the last 30 years, China has gone from 70% coal to 60% coal.

In the last 10 years they've had very stringent standards for new coal-burning plants, both coal-burning power plants and steel mills. The Chinese make the point that every coal-burning plant built in the U.S. during the last 10 years would have failed to meet the Chinese standard.

We can continue to point fingers and say, "yeah but they're still putting out tons of filth" and yes, of course they are. The economy can't afford to tear down all those old plants and replace them overnight. They'll probably continue being used to the end of their life-cycle. But the new plants being build are cleaner than ours. They have a lot of catching up to do, but they are serious about doing it.

[NomadPatriot]

The contention that water vapor may be a factor in the Greenhouse Effect does not deny:

1) the fact that the earth is warming (again, the preponderance of the evidence clearly makes this case);

2) Global warming is due to man releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels;

3) Nothing that MADp cites denies either 1) or 2).

4) If you read more of the ACS website, you can read that the above is true. That is posted and cited below my Conclusion.

Conclusion: As I pointed out in regards to Tzor's posts, those who try to deny the human role in Global Warming will selectively cite data to try to "prove" their point of view and ignore data and evidence that support the conclusion contrary to their opinion. The previous post by MADp is more of the same attempt to do such "cherry picking" of isolated facts that SEEM to deny man's role in Global Warming. It is again an example of MADp's obfuscation.


JP4Fun

well, well, well..

isn't that interesting..

i post a article stating how "humans releasing small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants" into the atmosphere is causing Earth to hit it's maximum atmospheric Water Vapor level.. so CO2 is not able to condense & is building up..

an article that clearly states humans caused Global Warming..

& JP says i am wrong..
that i
- " failed again. Good try, but be more thorough when you do research. AND you earned more Failing grades ("F") for logic, refutation, and for use of evidence."
- " It is again an example of MADp's obfuscation."
- " is more of the same attempt to do such "cherry picking" of isolated facts that SEEM to deny man's role in Global Warming"
- " failed to interpret any of his data or evidence "
- " failed at Basic Debate techniques "
- " cannot merely a offer a piece of evidence and expect it to speak for itself "
- " doing a good job piling up those "F" grades with impotent attempts to refute the premise that Global Warming and Climate Change is caused by anthropogenic activity "

so if according to JP.. i am wrong.. then Humans are not responsible for Global Warming.. Humans DID NOT release the Non-Condensable Gases that keeps Earth's Atmosphere at it's Water Vapor Maximum which prevents CO2 from being condensed out of the atmosphere...

hmmmm.
very interesting indeed..
JP seems so content on always being RIGHT and that i can never be right. .that he completely snapped this little " Madp's never right" Bear Trap i set right around his Boomer ankle..
let's watch him try to unclamp it..


sounds like JP might need to consult a .. Science Teacher .. with credible knowledge...

[jusplay4fun]

Well, well, well,.....

You don't get it, MADp. You are wrong. You cherry pick so call evidence. Did you bother READING what I posted that ACS says about Global Warming and its Cause? Apparently NOT. Try to learn. And I teach science, actually TWO and I did teach Debate, too. So I did consult a Science Teacher: ME.

(btw: you try to teach and are TERRIBLE at it. You were likely a poor student, too, while we are passing out credentials.)

So I know more than you, apparently, and you still do not learn nor are you an authority and you cannot think beyond your narrow opinion and you cannot comprehend facts and you do not comprehend science either, apparently.

Let's assume you made a valid point. ACS still says Global Warming is caused by man, so your main contention is denied by your very source. Game OVER; Debate OVER. You LOST.

You fail, AGAIN. And rather miserably, AGAIN. These repeated failure and you have gotten old. Until you can get the big picture, you are not worth discussing details or much else.

JP4Fun

The contention that water vapor may be a factor in the Greenhouse Effect does not deny:

1) the fact that the earth is warming (again, the preponderance of the evidence clearly makes this case);

2) Global warming is due to man releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels;

3) Nothing that MADp cites denies either 1) or 2).

4) If you read more of the ACS website, you can read that the above is true. That is posted and cited below my Conclusion.

Conclusion: As I pointed out in regards to Tzor's posts, those who try to deny the human role in Global Warming will selectively cite data to try to "prove" their point of view and ignore data and evidence that support the conclusion contrary to their opinion. The previous post by MADp is more of the same attempt to do such "cherry picking" of isolated facts that SEEM to deny man's role in Global Warming. It is again an example of MADp's obfuscation.


JP4Fun

well, well, well..

isn't that interesting..

i post a article stating how "humans releasing small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants" into the atmosphere is causing Earth to hit it's maximum atmospheric Water Vapor level.. so CO2 is not able to condense & is building up..

an article that clearly states humans caused Global Warming..

& JP says i am wrong..
that i
- " failed again. Good try, but be more thorough when you do research. AND you earned more Failing grades ("F") for logic, refutation, and for use of evidence."
- " It is again an example of MADp's obfuscation."
- " is more of the same attempt to do such "cherry picking" of isolated facts that SEEM to deny man's role in Global Warming"
- " failed to interpret any of his data or evidence "
- " failed at Basic Debate techniques "
- " cannot merely a offer a piece of evidence and expect it to speak for itself "
- " doing a good job piling up those "F" grades with impotent attempts to refute the premise that Global Warming and Climate Change is caused by anthropogenic activity "

so if according to JP.. i am wrong.. then Humans are not responsible for Global Warming.. Humans DID NOT release the Non-Condensable Gases that keeps Earth's Atmosphere at it's Water Vapor Maximum which prevents CO2 from being condensed out of the atmosphere...

hmmmm.
very interesting indeed..
JP seems so content on always being RIGHT and that i can never be right. .that he completely snapped this little " Madp's never right" Bear Trap i set right around his Boomer ankle..
let's watch him try to unclamp it..


sounds like JP might need to consult a .. Science Teacher .. with credible knowledge...