John Coleman slams global warming (1 of 4)

reduceghg your acct cracks me up.yes i am laughing..you are the perfect athist the etherige song and concern for ghgs you do know that co2 is heavier than o2 and nitrogen.never saw the lost squadron did ya..you ll be a hero nontheless.if the planet cools off youll take the credit and if it heats up you can say"told you so"..thanks for the extra taxation..

That didn't sound rational.
Try making a point. If all you can do is more of the same please don't bother.

look up this.
specific gravity of
c02
o2
n
and what percent of our atomsphere is c02..watch killer lakes national geo.

From the NAS report:
Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.

I must say, your persistent attacks on my character is also very charming. Get over yourself.

NAS
"greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising." The report notes that "changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,"

Find any inst. that say humans are NOT warming the planet? No.

So combining the two paragraphs, all it's claiming is the earth is warming because of greenhouse gas but we don't know for sure.

NAS:
It is not implausible that solar irradiance has been a significant driver of climate during part of the industrial era, as suggested by several modeling studies.

This certainly indicates there's plenty of room for debate. At any rate, it has certainly been over hyped.

Let's define "knowing for sure". Sounds like you need 100% certainty. There's no such thing. Risk habitability AGAINST the odds?

And yes, solar radiation is THE driver of climate. Nothing new there. No, there's no room for debate. Especially among laymen. If I had 98 docs out of 100 tell me I need an operation, ya think it might be a good idea to get one? YouBetCha!

Read what the inst. say. There's no better sources.

Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia

There's certainly many institutions supporting climate change, but there is also mounting evidence that it's a fraud and many scientists who oppose the theory.

It wasn't long ago that doctors bled people as treatment. In a field like climate, which contains so much doubt and variables, it's a possibility that the prevailing wisdom is incorrect, even more-so now that the theory has been politicized.

Good one! "Mounting evidence" It's not quite a mound yet but its on its way!
Garbage.

So you won't get that operation? You'll take your chances? Unlikely.

In the case of GW it isn't YOUR life you risk. It is the lives of future generations which are NOT yours to risk.

If it is that the best science available turns out to be wrong, great! I would prefer that the millions expected to suffer, don't. Yes, that wouldd be good. But, the odds say otherwise.

I recomment not picking through the overwhelming evidence for tidbits that agree with you. It's a symptom of denial isn't it?

Google... Study: Climate change to have irreversible consequences by 2050

Google... Climate change: what the scientists say

Nice to be charming but it's your reasoning skills only that are attacked.

Try reading Hot, Flat, And Crowded