Users Online Now:
1,310
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
227,737
Pageviews Today:
291,850
Threads Today:
59
Posts Today:
964
02:26 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:MoreAboutTunnelVision:MV84MTQ3MzlfNjI5NDk5MjdfRDNENTlBMjE=] [quote:**ZetaMax**:MV84MTQ3MzlfNjI5NDk4NTRfNDVGMzc2Qg==] The trick of climate doomsayers is that they draw their conclusions obtained from the Arrhenius formula for CO2 (only 0.04% of atmosphere), then apply that change of temperature to the WHOLE Earth; this is bad science, or possibly fraud. [/quote] [i]Claim: CO2 comprises less than 0.04 percent of the air. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming "short-wave" radiation from the sun and outgoing "long-wave" radiation from the Earth's surface. They play no role in regulating the planet's atmospheric temperature. But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation. So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower. Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won't impair your golf game. But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor. The relevant questions for climate science are how CO2 changes atmospheric temperatures and circulation and alters the oceans' chemistry and heat capacity.[/i] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/ No matter how hard you're trying, you won't be able to deny the fact that 97% of climate-studies agree on man-made climate change, as I posted earlier with the link. Do you realize that you are JUST SEARCHING for counter-evidence and ignore the (extremly high) consensus of most of these studies? That's why you still believe in doom and gloom and all this other BS. You just don't want it the other way round - even if the vast majority of evidence says otherwise. [/quote]
Original Message
Debunker Talk Live Chat May 15
Feel free to quote
ANY
poster from those silly SOZT...EOZT threads etc etc.
Or just post your thoughts/opinions.
Open Discussion on Zetatalk; Bunkers; and it/their inability, over the last
Six
years to provide
ANY
truthful Facts and Knowledge to support the absurd
Failed
predictions of the "Candy Wrapper Aliens".
Let's see how long the Three "bunker" Amigos can bounce off each other in their little padded room over there on
Zetatalk Jive Turkey Chat!!
PS: If any of you debunkers want to meet in the GLP text/voice chat for some LIVE audio conversation we should set a day/time to meet up in one of the rooms to have a discussion etc.
Would find it a pleasure to converse with some of you guys. I mean there's a wealth of different subjects to talk about besides this silly zetatalk stuff.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>