Quote from: iamnotback on December 17, 2016, 12:39:04 AM

Quote from: protokol on December 15, 2016, 01:03:42 AM

...one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.

Which are controlled by the proponents of the junk AGW science. Wherein they obscure their lies in shitloads of technobabble, manipulated data, cherry picked data, models to fit the conclusion desired, and other forms of JUNK SCIENCE.

If you think man can control the long-term thermodynamics of Earth, you are not a scientist. Any person with even a reasonable comprehension of thermodynamics would understand it simply doesn't make any sense. Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!

The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.

CO2 lags temperature changes because the oceans release more CO2 when they warm. The sun and flow from internally stored heat below the crust, controls the temperature of the oceans.

Please stop the nonsense. Especially please don't accuse us of being simpletons who can't understand basic thermodynamic facts.

"Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!"

Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.

As to your claim that "The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.", well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.

I'm not talking about AGW here, just refuting the claims in your post. I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, when you say things that are objectively false.

As to your rubbishing of the most reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals, do you have any evidence that they are controlled by these "proponents of junk AGW science"? You do realize that, even after peer review and publication, these journals are read and reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists across the world, who work in different fields, some of which are experts at things like statistical analysis and epistemology?

Not to mention the vast majority of opposing evidence to the AGW theory seems to come from suspect sources, sometimes linked to the fossil fuel industry or other fields which represent conflicts of interest.

If you are so sure, why not write a solid scientific paper yourself? You may not be able to get it published in a reputable journal, but I'm sure you could get it published online and reviewed.