Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
19 hours ago.
by Ohwiseone
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Tiredofit

OK give me the proof that manmade CO2 causes global warming. LOLOLOL you guys are trying everything to avoid that question because to quote my good friend Myth" mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

Thank you for what? Was my statement false in some manner?

Heck, you don't know what you even copy/pasted.

The science about man made global warming is not political.

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

"Hey are you offened by myths..."

Oh, I've seen this tactic before. Bill Oreilly points it out as a person trying to shrug his bad behvior by pointing out another person's alledged bad behavior.

Is that what you are trying to do Tired? Make your bad behavior not seem as bad?

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

A thank you would suffice Kendall

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

Tired, please stick to your tinfoil conspiracies...at least then you seem like you know what you are talking about. Even if it is just your own imagination.

The science about man made global warming is not political.

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry the ole bait and switch isn't going to work here, pretty lame attempt. Hey are you offened by myths use of words like AZZhole and PRICK?

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

"so you're answer of 319J/g is very close( it is not exact probably due to heat loss)."

HAHAHAHA....who are you talking to in this? Oh that's right...you don't know what you are really talking about at all, and that's why you copy/pasted from yahoo. HAHA.

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

GLAD TO EDUCATE YOU KENDALL YOURE WELCOME

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

Why would I do that Harry, that is not the topic.

THE QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT MAN MADE CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

"Guess you don't know about latent heat."

Oh brother you are funny. You get so vague about science when it doesn't suit your fantasy of govt conspiracy but then you'll get anal about this kind of science. You are trully a silly man Tired.

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

BUT where is the PROOF that MANMADE CO2 causes Global Warming, you guys always try to skirt that one.

Posted 3 days ago.

harryanderson

Have you named one climate scientist who says greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't prevent heat from radiating back into space?

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

"The specific latent heat of fusion of a substance is the amount of heat required to convert unit mass of the solid into the liquid without a change in temperature."

The specific latent heat of fusion of ice at 0 ºC, for example, is 334 kJ.kg-1. This means that to convert 1 kg of ice at 0 ºC to 1 kg of water at 0 ºC, 334 kJ of heat must be absorbed by the ice. Conversely, when 1 kg of water at 0 ºC freezes to give 1 kg of ice at 0 ºC, 334 kJ of heat will be released to the surroundings., so you're answer of 319J/g is very close( it is not exact probably due to heat loss).

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

What's the difference between frozen water and liquid..one small degree.

Guess you don't know about latent heat.

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

Enjoy the crow.

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

The science about man made global warming is not political.

Posted 3 days ago.

Kendall78

"Although temperature wise the increase is small it still has an effect."

What's the difference between frozen water and liquid..one small degree. So depending on the situation, even a small increase can be important.

Are we familiar with the concept of the Butterfly Effect? One small change can have profound effects elsewhere. So what if there is one small change globally? Does it stand to reason that the impact would be great?

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

GOT PROOF?

mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win.

Posted 3 days ago.

mythravere

Before I do have some dinner I just want to repeat this.

Tired you got no credibility. Waste your time ON ME if you want.

But know full well the game you are playing is futile.

You're not ever going to win this.

Even if it came to light this was indeed all a hoax.

You've already lost...because of how you "debate".

Posted 3 days ago.

Tiredofit

GOT PROOF?

mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win.

I guess well just go with this.

Posted 3 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or