Greens, Explain please:

1. How does a trace atmospheric gas reverse the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
2. Why does IPCC model assume that man made CO2 accumulates, while 'natural' CO2 dissipates?
3. Why does IPCC model apply directional vector to radiant heat dissipation?

These are fundamental impossibilities, and the 'scientists' involved in the AGW hoax consistently dodge attempting to reconcile these physical absurdities; instead, they have opted to mount a political/religious crusade using mass media driven hysteria and ridiculously false alarmist claims, neither of which is rooted in any known earth based scientific principle.

There are so many fallacies being propogated by the Greens that the whole concept is obviously a hoax. If it were true, they wouldn't need to resort to fearmongering:

1. doubling CO2 doubles heat absorption.
2. CO2 levels drive climate.
3. Earth's atmosphere acts as a greenhouse.
   etc., etc., etc.

Quote - Estimated death toll form smoking by middle of this century will be aorund 250 million, fyi. Makes the tyrants of last century look like second raters.

That's beans compared to the deaths caused by the greens. The DDT ban alone is directly responsible for at least twice that many deaths, and the greens have admitted that they knew it was a harmless chemical while they were lobbying for it's discontinuance.

Quote - If the climate change sby 2 degrees C or more in a century, be it by man made or any other cause, the death toll will probably be in the billions, fyi. War over food/water will be spectacularly bad.

I'll add that one to my list of fallacies/lies. Thanks!

Quote - It's very funny how most oflk will accept what science tells them, but nto this issue. The reaosn is obvious.

I find it tragic that, lacking any basis in real world science, that so many people support such an obvious hoax.
For instance, what qualitfies you to make an assessment of the science involved one way or the other?
Yet, here you are, mocking 'deniers'.

Quote - This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

They have said that for every year since 1991. 1 for 18 isn't very good record for predictions. Besides, what temperature record are you talking about?
The raw temperature data? or the 'adjusted' temperature data?
and the 'adjustments' are being done by the Hansen maniac at NASA.

Forget about predictions for the future. Let's look at past predictions and how they played out in the real world. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong; but this time, they are iron clad perfect... until they are found to be wrong again, and again, and again, and again.
When someone's predictions are wrong all the time, you would really have to be an ignorant asshole to continue to believe new predictions from the same source. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of ignorant assholes in the world.

---

I can honestly say that I have never encountered anyone learned in my field of specialty that believes mankind is responsible for Earth's climate. I'd guess between 25 and 35 percent of my colleagues believe that there is a lasting change to global climate happening now (and about 50/50 for cooling/warming).
That translates, by my 'old fashioned' figurin' (all 'deniers' are idiot flat earthers, remember?); that about 12.5 to 17.5 % of legitimate researchers believe global warming is a serious issue; and ~0% believe there is anything we could do about it, even if it was happening.
I personally feel that anyone claiming Anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are responsible should be stripped of all academic credentials and sent back to elementary education (or sent to career retraining school).

Friends don't let friends use booleans.