bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Stumbles
Re: Scientific fact > hysteria
said by Stumbles  :Gee wow, another imbecile spouting something as fact but no fact to back up just how much CO2 biomass consumes. I'm sorry, but what is the extent of your scientific knowledge because apparently you have none if you are touting the volcano theory as a counter to climate change... The volcano argument neither proves nor disproves climate change.
Perhaps you should think twice before calling others imbeciles and go get a real science education.
--
Prove it... |
|
Anubis Prime
join:2001-06-01
Indianola, PA
 ·Comcast
| reply to CrazyFingers
AND...I suppose we with our combustion engines, etc. are causing the temperature on Mars and the rest of the solar system to rise in unison.
Most people have no doubt that global warming is happening. We just disagree with the largely unproven notion that mankind is the major contributor to the problem. I would more believe that the great ball of burning gas in the sky has a great bit of culpability. Really, IMHO (and that's all it is) the population is starting to grow wise to this scam being perpetrated upon us. This is why there is such a big media push behind the global warming movement. (One last hurrah before global cooling begins. AND that would be a disaster because then many of these radical far-left leaning organizations would not be able to control CO2 production--thus not be able to control the means of production. For in an industrialized nation, there are very few economic activities that do not produce CO2. Poor Al Gore wouldn't be able to sell any carbon credits.)
Time's almost up... and time will tell.
I also love those graphs depicting rising CO2 levels and their effect on temperature (PSST...what they don't tell you is they are backwards on cause and effect. With higher temperatures come higher CO2 measurements, not the other way around--a bit "Inconvenient" for some people.)
Wow--another thought: Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. How do we stop water from evaporating?
For some it is a way to make us, as a civilization, feel important somehow when really we are just specks of dust along for the ride. OR is there a bigger more sinister reason that is oblivious to even those who are followers to the cause? There is a true Lord of the Sith--and it's not the bumbling dolt known as George Bush. He is the financier of all things left. His first name though, is also George. 
AND for the last time: CO2 is not a pollutant--it's plant food!
--
The most dangerous place in America to be is a "Gun-Free Zone". We protect our money with armed guards...How about our schoolchildren? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Stumbles
Since you have all the facts, how much?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | reply to bmn
Gee wow, another imbecile spouting something as fact but no fact to back up just how much CO2 biomass consumes. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Stumbles
Gee, wow, if you had any sort of scientific knowledge, you would see the problem with that argument... But alas, that argument was generated by a blow hard with no scientific background at all.
While volcanoes did and do generate large amounts of CO2, the amounts produced were balanced by a large rainforests and temperate forest systems that could handle it. So, the CO2 that was released balanced out. With the addition of man-made CO2, we've created a surplus of CO2 on top of what the forests can handle. Not to mention the pesky problem of rampant global deforestation reducing the CO2 carrying capacity of the atmosphere. Not to mention the affect that particulate emissions have had in reducing the warming effect of CO2. And on and on and on...
Sorry, the volcano argument falls flat.
--
Prove it... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to sporkme
Ah, who cares? In 50 years I'll be gone and won't be dealing with it. I hope those who are (on both sides of this argument) manage to grow gills by then. And horns. You'll need the former to breathe and the latter to defend yourself.
Enjoy the future!
This story is about absolute hysteria regarding something even the biggest dolt can see is not a problem. Turning it into yet another global warming discussion is just as stupid.
The climate is changing. Nobody is really sure why. The only certainty is that those alive 100 years from now will be living in different weather than we are now. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on those gills and horns.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to DufiefData
i don't know if you realize that is the first article that was posted for the "no such thing as global warming" earlier, but it does not reference any actual studies.
but regardless, his argument is flawed. yes, without greenhouse gases the planet would be just like outer space, scorching on the sun facing side, and almost absolute zero on the dark side (that's -459.67°F), so if we take a temperature range of 500°, that means that even his admitted numbers add up to a change of +1.395°. that kind of temperature change in the ocean means 10x the number and violence of storms. I don't believe that his numbers are realistic though.
besides, his argument is like saying that adding adding a drop of ricin to a glass of pure water is harmless because it is still 99.999% water. |
|
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to karthwyne
Maybe global warming is happening. Maybe it's not. Here's a perspective from a climate scientist in New Zealand:
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
.....
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
.....
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
......
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO | reply to pnh102
Well, as long as you don't take the nukular option...
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to CrazyFingers
That's an interesting question actually, since income taxes were unconstitutional until the Sixteenth Amendment. It certainly doesn't seem that the Founders of the country could have ever imagined an income tax, so it really does raise some thorny issues of original intent. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to CrazyFingers
said by CrazyFingers :I over-estimated you. You misunderestimated me 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO | reply to pnh102
*sigh*...
I had hoped that the sarcasm in the second sentence would have made the same in the first sentence obvious.
I over-estimated you. I'm sorry, I promise it won't happen again.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to CrazyFingers
said by CrazyFingers :Now now pnh106 (sic), we both know that is an absurd statement. Why? You just said the same thing about the "scientists" of old. I am extending your statement to the scientists of new. Science certainly isn't dead as an academic discipline, and for us to assume that we "know everything" is silly and dangerous. To quote one such scientist, "we do not know, what we don't know."
My main problem with simply "going with the consensus" on any subject is that it discourages academic review. It is just as bad as answering every scientific question with the response "God did it." Without review and challenging of accepted scientific principles, how will we know that they are valid or not?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO | reply to pnh102
Now now pnh106, we both know that is an absurd statement.
We'll all be dead in 500 years after the arctic icecaps melt and the polar bears descend on us in a feeding frenzy.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to CrazyFingers
said by CrazyFingers :Sorry, but 500 years ago, there was nobody that could even remotely be considered a "scientist" by modern standards. And how can you say that someone who is a scientist today by modern standards will be looked upon as such 500 years from now?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
2 edits | reply to jester121
actually, i have never heard that as a reason to believe in global warming, only the bush administration, ie your .gov website, has used that tactic to say why we shouldn't.
personally i like to follow the scientific method and base ideas on logic and fact.
like the ice core samples that show we should be on a cooling cycle in global temperature based on historical record and instead are warming.
like the fact that the polar ice caps are forming 2+ weeks later than they used to, and melting 2+ weeks sooner killing numerous polar bears by starvation.
or in response to the volcano argument, yes, there have been volcano eruptions, and eruptions that caused massive global warming and mass extinction, but we also had 2x the amount of rain forest, and probably a good 100x the amount of temperate forest. just compare the temperatures in a city with the country and you will see the affects man has made on a smaller scale. when europeans first made it to north america, it is said a squirrel could traverse from the atlantic to the pacific without touching the ground as the continent was covered in forests.
and to the guy in black mountain, NC, i'm sure you can smell the paper factory in canton some days, you think that is natural? would you rather drink the water upstream or downstream from them? |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
| reply to sporkme
Hmm, I wonder how many 1000s of times more all the volcano's spew out CO2 compared to all the human activity in one year. Oh that's right volcano's have only been doing that for thousands of years while the recent human industrial/technological activities only amount to a few hundred. I wonder how a few hundred years trumps a 1000 years plus. |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :Sounds exactly like the whole man-made global warming hype to me. Not quite as pervasive, but at least some true scientists are starting to speak up and call foul. No, you've got it backwards:
crazy unscientific wifi tinfoil crowd = the handful of oil "scientists" paid to still have "doubts" that the shit we spew out actually has some kind of effect on the planet
If you want to doubt science, join the tinfoil crowd. |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
| reply to pnh102
Sorry, but 500 years ago, there was nobody that could even remotely be considered a "scientist" by modern standards. Those who tried were typically threatened with a nice dry stack of kindling until they "remembered" that the sun orbited the Earth and witches floated because they were made of wood.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :It's truly amazing that otherwise rational people are afflicted with brain freeze when anyone questions their views on climate change Intelligent Design. Isn't this all about science? Isn't questioning things the very basis of science? Why are people so willing to believe that there is only one possibility, and it's theirs? Sounds more like religious atheist fanaticism than science to me. Environmentalist Darwinian bigotry is perfectly acceptable these days, but that still doesn't make it sane. I mean...as long as you're cooking up lists of people that claim to believe crackpot drivel supported by a couple of websites, we might as well toss IDers into the soup.
I'd love to hear your theories on the constitutionality of Federal income taxes.
And what about chupacabras?
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
