|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Global Warming Scam | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4853 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
Noggin: But I love a good dog pile!
[anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.] quote: 1. The subject is The Global Warming Scam. Please stop trying to change the subject, which is NOT a tightrope walker, who, in any event, would simply shift the balance bar ever so slightly to one side. Where did this .3 pounds come from, anyway? A bird affixed it to the end of the bar?
quote: 2. The "scale" does not "tip" because 100% of carbon dioxide is anthropogenic. Why should anyone be so dishonest as to attribute 100% of increases to human beings? Because they have "trillions of dollars" at stake, from government grants and global warming conventions all over the world, week after miserable week, and because they want to fleece "rich" America for all they can, and because they want to control the lives of everyone else. 3. If you don't like 3.4%, which is not my number, then multiply it by 10. Use 34%. It is still only about one third of the phoney baloney cooked up by the fear-mongering global warmers.
quote: Yes, let's.
quote: 4. Why do I have to do everything? It's bad enough that there are dozens, no make that scores of folks who pound for one side and demand that one person reply to each and every one of them. Failure to do so elicits the usual cacophony of guffaws and titters. Debate is impossible when the numbers are so stacked, as is always the case on message boards dominated by the left. A. If this business is so urgent, as folks like you are always demanding so incessantly, then why do the hypocrites keep flying around the world to conferences and meetings? Why don't they videoconference and practice what they preach? Answer: Because they're dishonest and they know it. B. Everyone who is anyone is demanding an "80% reduction" in anthropogenic carbon dioxide production. 80%. You mean I have to explain to you what cutting back your energy consumption 80% would mean to the world? Everyone in America would do that? Even as worldwide population continues to grow annually? Worldwide depression, on an unprecedented and permanent scale. No more vacations. No more heating your home. Your 20% allocation would permit you to go to work, and operate there, with equipment and lights, and that's about it. The rest of your life would be bare subsistence. Be my guest. I want no part of the Theodore Kaczynski lifestyle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4853 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
Taz:
quote: 1. Liberals, like you, have long opposed reducing dependence on foreign oil by denying further drilling in ANWR, and offshore, and virtually anywhere else. 2. Liberals, like you, have long opposed building more nuclear power plants, which would lower our dependence on foreign energy sources. 3. Liberals, like you, have long screamed that electricity is a source of "clean" energy, and you tout electric vehicles, as if they drew their power from the magic of atheism. In fact, almost 50% of electricity generated in America is produced by burning coal. Coal is very filthy and produces far more carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, due to the lack of hydrogen burning to water. It's all CO2. 4. How disingenuous of you to invoke the Bible in matters of science, when liberals like you are always mocking Christianity and pretending that we bring it up. Sorry, it was you who did that.Is there a reason that liberals are always sucking up to worldwide depression by demanding draconian measures that will avail us absolutely nothing? 5. Did you and your liberal friends learn absolutely nothing from the Club of Rome's fearmongering nonsense of the 1960s?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4853 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
tag:
quote: What was it one of your liberal friends said earlier about my being "dumber than a bag of hammers"? How "understanding" that is. How utterly "scientific" and "enlightened." You misspelled "atmosphere." In a long response, that might be overlooked. But you wrote three short sentences, and still you screwed up the word by transposing letters in two different ways.I won't call you "dumber than a bag of hammers" however. I'll leave that to you and your pals to pound me with. I mean when your gang is not invoking the Bible and pretending that I did so. Are you familiar with the concept of "saturation"? It's a simple question.Do you have any idea of how much the concentration of water vapor exceeds that of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? Any idea? It's a simple question. Do you know how LeChatelier's Principle works? There are your answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Are you familiar with the concept of "saturation"? It's a simple question. Do you have any idea of how much the concentration of water vapor exceeds that of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? Any idea? It's a simple question. I do understand saturation, and I also understand precipitation. You do understand the linkage between these two mechanisms, do you not? Have you ever seen water vapor precipitate out from the atmosphere (and I spelled it correctly this time). I think they call it "rain" or something like that. So water vapor is always near saturation on a global level, and the halflife of any water molecule in the atmosphere is measured in days. Compare this to carbon dioxide. The half life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in years, and it is nowhere near saturation. This means that, unlike water vapor, carbon dioxide levels can rise and remain high for years to come. Not so with water vapor. Therefore, the water vapor percentage in the atmosphere can not drive long term climates because it is always at saturation and the half life of water in the atmosphere is very short. Water vapor is not a driver of global climate. However, carbon dioxide CAN drive climate because it does not precipitate out and has a long half life in the atmosphere. So, back to the question that your refused to answer. What happens when we increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Is more heat, less heat, or the same amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere? Simple question. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But I love a good dog pile! "Bring it on!"
It's bad enough that there are dozens, no make that scores of folks who pound for one side and demand that one person reply to each and every one of them. "Waah! Mommy, they hit me back!"
If this business is so urgent, as folks like you are always demanding so incessantly, then why do the hypocrites keep flying around the world to conferences and meetings? Who is doing all this flying? Be specific.
Everyone who is anyone is demanding an "80% reduction" in anthropogenic carbon dioxide production. Who is "everyone who is anyone"? Be specific. Why do you give the impression that the "global warming proponents" you're railing against exist only in your mind?
You mean I have to explain to you what cutting back your energy consumption 80% would mean to the world? Why would 80% reduction in CO2 emission necessitate an 80% reduction in consumption? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
BarackZero writes:
Haha, and I suppose you also believe us liberals can fly and do sorcery? What other nonsense do you believe about us liberals? This I'd like to see. 1. Liberals, like you, have long opposed reducing dependence on foreign oil by denying further drilling in ANWR, and offshore, and virtually anywhere else. 2. Liberals, like you, have long opposed building more nuclear power plants, which would lower our dependence on foreign energy sources. 3. Liberals, like you, have long screamed that electricity is a source of "clean" energy, and you tout electric vehicles, as if they drew their power from the magic of atheism. In fact, almost 50% of electricity generated in America is produced by burning coal. Coal is very filthy and produces far more carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, due to the lack of hydrogen burning to water. It's all CO2. 4. How disingenuous of you to invoke the Bible in matters of science, when liberals like you are always mocking Christianity and pretending that we bring it up. Sorry, it was you who did that.Is there a reason that liberals are always sucking up to worldwide depression by demanding draconian measures that will avail us absolutely nothing? 5. Did you and your liberal friends learn absolutely nothing from the Club of Rome's fearmongering nonsense of the 1960s?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
1. Liberals, like you, have long opposed reducing dependence on foreign oil by denying further drilling in ANWR, and offshore, and virtually anywhere else. My guess is cause things like what happend in the summer happen, did they clost the oil leak how much damage did it cause.
2. Liberals, like you, have long opposed building more nuclear power plants, which would lower our dependence on foreign energy sources. So what you are saying one should produce power in a dengorus way instead of green power like: solar, tidal, wind, geothermal.....
3. Liberals, like you, have long screamed that electricity is a source of "clean" energy, and you tout electric vehicles, as if they drew their power from the magic of atheism. In fact, almost 50% of electricity generated in America is produced by burning coal. Coal is very filthy and produces far more carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, due to the lack of hydrogen burning to water. It's all CO2. So you should close down those plants and build up solar, wind, geotermal, Biomass .....
4. How disingenuous of you to invoke the Bible in matters of science, when liberals like you are always mocking Christianity and pretending that we bring it up. Sorry, it was you who did that. Is there a reason that liberals are always sucking up to worldwide depression by demanding draconian measures that will avail us absolutely nothing? No green activist demands that you tare down all your powerplants and then build up new green ones. We want you to stop building polution orientaded power plants and cars and start building green ones. curently the only reaon solar power is exspensive is because the parts for the plants haveto be individualy made if more such plants where built they would become cheeper. The same goes for all the other green technology, you would not have to give up anything if a push was made for renewable energy. And the smog you breathe in every day would not be there. Hurricanes that should come around every 100 years would come around every 100 years not every decade. If you like fast and powerful cars biodisel offers more power then diesel and diesel uses 50% of the energy it produces while gas uses 40%, currently diesel can top any Benz in anything except top speed and it only lacks behind a few km h. While it surpasses the bent on torque, acceleration... And biodisel will and does offer more power because one can calibrate the engine to pure fuel normal diesel has stuff in it they haveto calculate in the engine fiering. So tell me what is THE DOWN SIDECheper power?? Smog free cities?? Healthier people?? nicer weather????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
BarackZero writes: Liberals, like you, have long opposed building more nuclear power plants, which would lower our dependence on foreign energy sources. I'm a liberal, and I don't oppose nuclear power. I'm really looking forward to when we figure out how to harvest the power of nuclear fusion. I think nuclear power could play an important role in a greener energy economy. But this doesn't mean that other clean energy sources, like wind, solar, water, tidal power, geothermal, etc. should be neglected. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I'm a liberal, and I don't oppose nuclear power. I'm really looking forward to when we figure out how to harvest the power of nuclear fusion. I think nuclear power could play an important role in a greener energy economy. But this doesn't mean that other clean energy sources, like wind, solar, water, tidal power, geothermal, etc. should be neglected. I second that. There is too much relying on fossil fuels either from here or from foreign sources. The romance of the American citizen and the automobile is a major factor. We need to not only cut down on importing oil, but start using less. Why should a person hop in his car to go a mile to get a loaf of bread. What is wrong with walking that distance, I do this all the time and I have peripheral artery disease. If I can walk several miles in my condition, why can't an able bodied person do it? The same goes for driving kids to soccer, football, baseball, dancing lessons etc.Let the kids get some exercise walking to the practice. As a child I ad to walk almost anyplace I wanted to go, my parents didn't own a car until I was stationed in Vietnam at age 20. As for nuclear power I also welcome it with solar,wind etc. just less coal, gas & oil. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4853 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
tag:
quote: Wrong saturation. I meant the saturation of absorption by greenhouse gases. After all of the IR radiation in the region has been absorbed by water, which of course is substantially the same as that of carbon dioxide, there is nothing left to absorb, is there. That "saturation."
quote: 1. No, 1.5% weight to weight is not remotely "always near saturation." 2. Your pretense that older molecules are somehow different from newer ones is blatantly anti-scientific. I shan't bother to discuss anything further with you since you engage in halflifes of water molecules, which is about as immaterial as material can im. ciao
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4853 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
frako:
quote: Permanent global depression on an unprecedented scale.You finishing out your life in a rathole cabin, like "environmentalist" Theodore Kaczynski. How's that for "down side"? And learn how to spell "cheaper." This is supposed to be a forum of "understanding."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you really didn't understand Taq's post, you could always have asked him or one of the other grown-ups to explain it to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Permanent global depression on an unprecedented scale. You finishing out your life in a rathole cabin, like "environmentalist" Theodore Kaczynski. How's that for "down side"? Is there anything else you'd like to make up? How about a nice plague of frogs or a rain of blood?
And learn how to spell "cheaper." This is supposed to be a forum of "understanding." I bet his understanding of English is better that your understanding of Slovenian. Or, on your past showing, pretty much anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What was it one of your liberal friends said earlier about my being "dumber than a bag of hammers"? How "understanding" that is. How utterly "scientific" and "enlightened." Why, thank you, but you flatter me too much. Basic scientific literacy is all it takes to see how silly your mistakes are. "Enlightened" is too strong a word for one who can cross that pons asinorum. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Permanent global depression on an unprecedented scale. You finishing out your life in a rathole cabin, like "environmentalist" Theodore Kaczynski. Like the one we will DEFINITIVLY have when the fossil fuels run out and we are not prepared for it. I see no reason for a global depression if green power is sponsored insted of fossil power.Can you explain why do you think it will come to a global depression if we start building solar plants, geotermal plants, wind, tidal...... and other renewable plants. Or why would it come to a global depression if we start using biofuels.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024