Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Scam
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 1 of 177 (585413)
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


Global Warming - *science*
Global Warming is about as *scientific* as Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.
In point of fact, the hockey stick graph which has made millions of dollars for Al Gore, reflects a basic misrepresentation.
The increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, from ~315 ppm in 1999 to ~370 ppm today in always shown in the finest scale, totally out of relationship to its place in the atmosphere.
This misrepresentation is made the worse by the fact that anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.
Set to scale in the totality of the atmosphere, if anthropogenic carbon dioxide were one pixel, the total carbon dioxide concentration would be 27.81 pixels beginning at 1999, and 29.3 pixels today. 29 pixels is about two lines of this font, from the bottom of this row to the top of the letters above it.
Now go up an additional 740 pixels, which represents water vapor, argon, and miscellaneous gases. 740 pixels will be about three-fourths of the way up the screen.
Another 14,476 pixels high will take you through oxygen, ~19% of our atmosphere. That's 14 screens high, just for oxygen.
Nitrogen, 80% of our atmosphere, is 60,952 pixels high.
61 screens higher.
Man-made carbon dioxide, I say again, is one pixel high.
You follow the dictates of Al Gore and *environmentalists* everywhere, particularly those who will be flying to Cancun, Mexico in November, to dine yet again on lobster and shrimp, as they attempt to mold the world into the pawns they wish everyone else to be. Twenty thousand of them went to South America to preach their cynical, dishonest gospel.
So many went to Malaysia last year that their private jets used up all the space in the airport.
Videoconference, you say? Mais porquoi, when sappy taxpayers will foot the bill for lovely trips to Cancun, there to scuba dive, eat, drink, and be very merry indeed.
Atmospheric Composition
The Global Warming Scam

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 1:39 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 10-08-2010 1:42 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 6 by frako, posted 10-08-2010 1:58 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 2:00 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 8 by Blue Jay, posted 10-08-2010 2:02 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-08-2010 2:26 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 3:19 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 10-08-2010 4:14 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2010 8:56 PM BarackZero has replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 14 of 177 (585545)
10-08-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-08-2010 1:22 PM


jar:
You misunderstand the problem.
If most of the gas emissions that cause global warming are not man made but natural, that simply means that we must reduce the man made contributions to zero and then also find a way to reduce the parts nature contributes.
=========
Barack:
No, you misunderstand, and very badly at that.
1. It is extremely dishonest to misrepresent the facts. This is done constantly by Al Gore and millions like him. The graph explained above is Exhibit 1.
2. You assume there IS "a problem." That has yet to be demonstrated. In point of fact, a careful study of long-term carbon dioxide concentrations, minute as they are, follow temperature changes by ~700 years. If, as AlGorians claim, carbon dioxide causes temperature increases, the graphs would be reversed, but they are not. Q.E.D.
3. In any event, would it not be prudent for AlGorians to practice what they preach and demand of everyone else? This they do not do, beginning with the not-so-smart Al Gore himself. He trots around the world, frightening people with doomsday scenarios, which they all drive for miles around to hear, and pay for.
What a bunch of suckers.
4. Then too we have *scholars* and teachers and researchers of every stripe, trotting all around the globe, often in search of more research dollars, to help *prove* what AlGorians all claim has already been as established a fact as gravity or Darwinism.
Google environmental conferences and click on the schedule of them, worldwide. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, everywhere. Everyone huddling together in large rooms to speak in frightened terms of how we're all going to die, and soon, unless we all stop doing what they did to get to their huddle.
When the left stops taking vacations, and stops going to parties, and to movies, and to plays, and to concerts, and when the left stops air conditioning their own residences in summer, and heating them in winter, and when the left cuts their own carbon dioxide emissions by the 80% they insist upon for everyone else, then I may think about believing they are serious about what they preach so hypocritically.
I won't hold my breath until then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 1:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 5:43 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 6:01 PM BarackZero has replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 16 of 177 (585550)
10-08-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Omnivorous
10-08-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Hot Air
Omnivorous:
The environmentalists are going to Cancun to eat the lobster and shrimp that they can't get anywhere else? [Your words, not mine. Do you pretend that they paid their own way to this vacation spot so popular to so many? Please, cease with such stuff.]
Unlike the rest of us poor slobs, who have to go to the supermarket or Red Lobster or the local clam shack... No, wait, that doesn't work. [Well, yes it does. They're still going to Cancun, just like they've gone to so very many other spots around the world. Instead of videoconferencing.] Unlike the hordes of college students and vacationing families who descend on Cancun every year? No, that doesn't work, either. [Who pay their own way.
You seem to have intentionally neglected who pays the tab, in the same way you intentionally neglected why they can't videoconference. ]
All those wealthy bastards are just dying to go to Mexico on our dime, instead of the French Riviera and Monaco on their own?
Right.
Barack:
Who said they are all wealthy? Oh wait, you did.
Omnivorous again:
Well, there goes the shellfish crap.
Al Gore is an idiot who flunked out of Divinity School? Well, no, actually he withdrew after one year and switched to law. Of course, he had already completed studies at Harvard with honors and volunteered for service in Vietnam.
BarackZero:
Al Gore flunked out divinity school and law school.
Al Gore claimed that the earth is "several million degrees just two kilometers down."
http://www.examiner.com/...just-how-stupid-is-al-gore-anyway
One can thus easily see why the left follows this Scientific and Intellectual Giant so readily.
"And we all know a zebra doesn't change its spots." - Al Gore
"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." - Al Gore
"Who are these guys?" - Al Gore at Montecello, wondering who the busts of our Founding Fathers were
Omnivorous:
He went on to serve in Congress as both a rep and a senator, then was elected to the vice-presidency, then the presidency... No, wait, five conservatives on the SCOTUS took care of that last bit, despite his winning the popular vote, by refusing to allow the recount mandated by Florida law.
BarackZero:
Oops. You attempt to perpetuate one of the many Big Lies of the left.
In fact, the Miami Herald and USA Today both undertook a painstaking recount of the disputed votes. Both confirmed that... Bush won. It wasn't headlines because it disputed the Big Lie of leftist media everywhere. It still does, quite clearly.
Omnivorous:
Nonetheless, we can cross out the Al Gore slander crap, which was irrelevant anyway. Still, I'd love to hear how your achievements dwarf his. Feel free to post your vita.
BarackZero:
Your attention is directed to the SUBJECT of this thread.
I originated it.
You merely wish to change it.
Pay attention. It's not about me. It's about The Global Warming Scam, and Al Gore is the biggest proponent of this scam on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 10-08-2010 4:14 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 10-08-2010 7:25 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 10-08-2010 7:45 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 18 of 177 (585554)
10-08-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
10-08-2010 1:42 PM


Have you people any idea, any idea whatsoever how difficult it is to respond to one person after another after another?
Clearly you don't want to consider what anyone wishes to say if it dissents from your global warming/atheist/left wing agendas.
You just want to intimidate them, make them out to be buffoons, far beneath your Intellectual Magesterium.
That is straight out of the Democrat Handbook.
Notwithstanding such intolerance, I will address yet another of your faithful monothinkers:
Crashfrog:
We don't measure atmospheric gas concentrations in pixels, but in ppm.
BarackZero: Gee, I had no idea. Thanks, thanks for that moment of great edification. No, really.
I did not say we do measure gas in pixels. Your jejune attempt to put your words or concepts in my mouth is inappropriate and not in keeping with a spirit of debate or thoughtfulness, much less tolerance and decency.
Virtually any graph you pull up on your computer screen will be of a size and scale that to extrapolate the top of the "million parts" would extend the graph 509 meters above your monitor.
509 meters is about 1,670 feet.
crashfrog:
Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas because it has no dipole moment and is therefore IR-inactive.
BarackZero:
Completely immaterial. Utterly irrelevant.
Nota bene: the concentration of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as universally shown by all AlGorians is almost always expressed in parts per million.
Consistent with that convention is explaining what the overwhelming majority of the REST of the "million parts" happen to be. That you do not like this is also irrelevant.
It is called "perspective."
You focus on something and skew it hard enough, and you can mislead many people with *statistics*.
That is the point of showing some perspective, which is almost always lacking in leftists' points of view.
He goes on:
Climate change is very real. The last decade had the highest recorded global average temperatures of any point in human history. (Claims that "global warming has ended" or that we're now experiencing "global cooling" are outright falsehoods.) Global CO2 levels are now the highest they've ever been in 650,000 years. To deny that the two are unrelated is idiotic. To deny that human release of CO2, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, is the height of irresponsibility.
BarackZero:
Climate change is indeed "very real." That is not the point.
If it is so "very real," then why must AlGorians lie through their teeth to promote their *solutions*?
Why must AlGorians display such profound hypocrisy again and again, while demanding obeisance to groundlings all around them?
Why have AlGorians not begun to explain away the 700 year lag time of carbon dioxide after rising temperatures?
The real point is that the lie, of global temperature being increased by any carbon dioxide much less anthropogenic carbon dioxide, is the point. See-oh-two follows temperatures, not the other way around. This crucial fact is covered up, neglected, and otherwise spun by scary naysayers who worship at the AlGorian altar.
You suffer the rest of your own life and those of your children and grandchildren at home, never traveling far, or doing much, all for the supposed, hypothetical, theoretical benefit of billions of others the world over.
They will continue merrily burning forests in the Amazon, burning gigatons of coal in China, and doing everything they can to improve their own lives, even as a pitiful few on the loony left talk the talk, while seldom walking the walk. Take Al Gore, please.
And take all the lovelies going to these conferences too:
Environment events | Conal Conference Alerts Topic Listing
Edited by BarackZero, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 10-08-2010 1:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 6:31 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 6:35 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 6:40 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 8:13 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 8:26 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-09-2010 12:35 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 19 of 177 (585555)
10-08-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
10-08-2010 6:01 PM


Adequate:
Well, that would almost be relevant if anyone had ever ever claimed that rises in carbon dioxide levels initiate the end of a glacial period. But they don't. They claim that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which is indisputable.
BarackZero:
Not remotely true, and you know it.
"They" (including you of course) claim that carbon dioxide is heating up the earth's atmosphere, raising the sea level, and ::: gasp::::
making polar bears extinct.
These are extraordinarily disputable. Just not in this forum.
Disputers are quickly pummeled by the mob.
I think you call it "debate".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 6:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 6:27 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 8:18 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 24 of 177 (585563)
10-08-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taq
10-08-2010 6:25 PM


Tag wrote:
Currently the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase the average global temperature by 60 degrees F. Without these minute percentages of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane we would be living on an ice world. So what do you think happens when we increase the levels of these greenhouse gases? Do you think less heat gets trapped in the atmosphere or more heat?
BarackZero:
It is extremely misleading for you to call water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane all "minute quantities" when you know very well that the proportion of carbon dioxide's contribution to the total is very small.
Water vapor is 95% of greenhouse gases, hardly "minute."
Moreover, human activity contributes only .28% of greenhouse gases.
.28%.
AlGorians must all sacrifice the rest of your lives to nudge this percentage down to .27%.
That will indeed be a hallelulah moment for everyone.
Tag continues:
Even more, the major greenhouse gas is water vapor which, due to its very short half life in the atmosphere, is near equilibrium at any point in time. However, carbon dioxide has a relatively long half life in the atmosphere. If you increase the carbon dioxide levels you trap more heat which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere. Raising carbon dioxide levels has more heat trapping capability than just the carbon dioxide alone because of the effects it has on the total climate and atmosphere.
The only real question is how much the temperature will go up, not if.
BarackZero:
Your pretense that rapidity of molecular movement is somehow important.
Please explain how different water molecules would react differently in the atmosphere than those which had moved on through the cycle. I've never heard such a preposterous explanation of the effects of chemical concentrations.
As S. Fred Singer states in his newest book, solar activity is the primary determinant of our climate.
I suggest all of you read it: "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years"
It's chock full of science, not the fear-mongering nonsense you get from Al Gore and company, just before they set out in a private jet to their next gig.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 6:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 10:05 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 26 of 177 (585565)
10-08-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taq
10-08-2010 6:35 PM


Tag:
Where is the hocus pocus? Is your only complaint about the units used to measure carbon dioxide? If so, it is irrelevant to the whole argument. Carbon dioxide at hundreds per parts million (SIC) has very, very measurable greenhouse effects.
[Spoken like a true climate scientist: "hundreds per parts million".]
["Very measurable." Riiiiight]
BarackZero:
1. No, my complaint of the misleading *increase* in carbon dioxide was merely my opening salvo. It is unfortunately overlooked far and wide as the argument goes on and on and on and on.
First, let's agree on the data we have, and put that data in proper perspective. After we have agreed that the units are indeed "ppm" or "parts per million" can everyone see that the graph isn't nearly as scary as Al Gore pretends it is. It's actually trivial, nearly insignificant.
2. Anthropogenic global warming constitutes ~.28% of the total greenhouse gas extant.
Everyone here please sacrifice your own lives and happiness to cut that down to .27%. I pass.
3. Speaking of which, why do the environmental hypocrites fly and drive around and around and around the world if flying and driving is so terribly awful, hmmm?
Oh wait, your friend says that's unimportant, since they'd rather be in Monaco. And, they can buy shellfish elsewhere.
Good one. Really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 6:35 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by frako, posted 10-08-2010 7:17 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 37 by seanfhear, posted 10-08-2010 9:46 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 27 of 177 (585568)
10-08-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
10-08-2010 6:40 PM


ringo:
How does that work, exactly? How does an increase in temperature cause an increase in CO2 output?
===============
BarackZero:
First, no additional carbon dioxide outputs are needed.
We're talking about CONCENTRATIONS, not "output."
There is a very material difference.
The greatest repository of carbon dioxide when it is released by any source is the ocean.
And what is the relationship between the solubility of carbon dioxide, or oxygen for that matter, and the temperature of water?
It decreases. So as water gets hotter, carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean less readily, which is to say, more slowly.
In the same manner, when you take a can of soda out of the refrigerator, CO2 bubbles out of the soda as it warms up.
Beer and champagne do the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 6:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 7:15 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 7:16 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 10:08 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 42 of 177 (585784)
10-09-2010 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by frako
10-08-2010 7:17 PM


Frako writes:
all of this and more saves you money or even earns you some and it also helps the environment so where is the downside ??
===========
Dear Friend,
Yours is one of the most level-headed, decent, and thoughtful responses I have ever seen from a group of atheists or Darwinists, take your pick. Outstanding. Thank you very much.
Now to respond to you:
1. There IS no downside to being thrifty with your own money and possessions. It is commendable. I do it quite extensively. The problem is, I don't MANDATE that everyone else do so. Al Gore wants to do exactly that. The gentle folk all flying to Cancun, Mexico and then riding in taxis from the airport, all on government monies, want to do just that. Their *goodness*. Their *environmentalism*.
Their hypocrisy.
2. I cut my grass front and back today. Do you think Al Gore cuts his own grass? With a push mower? I don't think so. I doubt if 10% of self-styled *environmentalists* do.
3. I walk to the stores all around me, up to 3 miles away, and carry back groceries and other items I buy. We walk to diners and eat meals for under $10 for two of us. So even when we go out, we conserve resources. Nevertheless, keep in mind that the per capita GDP of Slovenia is $27,470 while America's is $45,934. So American *environmentalists* can be much bigger hypocrites than most other *environmentalists*. Take Hollywood, please.
4. When I see parking lot lights on at schools, or public parks, or pools, or government buildings, or even shopping centers when they should not be on, I always call them for two reasons:
A. I don't want the public sector wasting my tax dollars.
B. I want the businesses at shopping centers to earn a profit, not pay for unnecessary electrical charges.
Now I have made such phone calls to city and state agencies more times than I can ever count. Many of those times, I told the good folks, "If you received ONE OTHER CALL besides mine on these lights, I will buy you all lunch."
I have yet to buy them lunch.
So you see, all the self-styled *environmentalists* talk **** all the time, but they just don't DO ****.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by frako, posted 10-08-2010 7:17 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 7:09 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 45 by Panda, posted 10-09-2010 7:21 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 44 of 177 (585786)
10-09-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Panda
10-08-2010 8:26 PM


Panda writes:
I appreciate the irony of posting a reply to this comment, but I think it needs to be said.
Forum discussions are NOT a race.
If there are lots of replies to your posts, then no-one will be surprised if it takes you a while to reply.
BarackZero:
I appreciate the necessity of explaining my point of MANY of you versus ONE of me, but you missed this.
No matter how foul your pals are, for example the *gentle* soul who says I can't wipe Al Gore's ass, not one of you ever condemns hateful intolerance from your own side of the aisle.
Not one of you.
No matter HOW trivial your side's objections or spins or red herrings are, not matter how badly your side tries to refute me rather than thinking about what I have to say, NOBODY on your side ever gives any credit. No, all they do is give the usual leftist Heave Ho.
Shut up and get out is the bottom line from the left.
You're with the left, or you're OUTTA HERE!
Debate is impossible.
Panda:
If you rush your answers, then you are likely to be unclear and fail to communicate your points successfully.
BarackZero:
What "point" has ever been "successfully communicated" to AlGorians such as surround me? Name one. Just one.
It is most unscientific and anti-intellectual to deride someone and harass them. That is about all the left is capable of.
Panda:
So, my well-meant advice is: STOP...and breathe.
Take your time and focus on quality and not speed.
Barack:
My well-meant advice to you is to look impartially, if you can, at the vile messages of your pals.
I shall not bother to respond to such maliciousness in the future.
Let me quote from the Holy Bible:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."
You might ask your pal if HE has a premium account with Fidelity Investments.
You might ask him if HE has been atop the Great Wall of China, and the Berlin Wall, and hiked the Cinque Terre, and the Samarian Gorge, to name but a few.
You might ask him if HE is happily married, to the wife of his youth, or if HE has skied down a black diamond, or completed a marathon in the top 7% of finishers, or has caught a 230 pound ahi, or has dived below 125 feet, or has taken his less successful siblings to Paris and London for ten days, all on his own dime, or if HE has taken his parents and his in-laws to Hawaii, and to London, and to Paris, and to Switzerland, and to Mexico to name but a few trips.
On second thought, don't bother. I couldn't care less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 8:26 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Panda, posted 10-09-2010 7:27 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 47 of 177 (585790)
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


The environmental extremism that is epidemic in America is grotesquely similar to Darwinism in several interesting respects.
AlGorianism is like Darwinism in that both groups make gross exaggerations and assumptions, and call them *science*.
Both groups engage in the most childish kind of name-calling.
If you do not agree with either, then they label you "stupid" and "ignorant" and claim you "just don't understand."
For example, one of the most childish rants I have seen here consisted of an individual claiming I am a high-schooler who is not fit to "wipe Al Gore's ass".
Lovely. I'll bet he talks like that at work all the time.
Did ONE of you have the courage to condemn his actions?
Not a chance.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Who remains silent seems to give consent.
If Darwinists or Global Warmers would concede that there IS room for discussion, it would certainly go a long way towards having discussions.
But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere.
It's pathological narcissism, so apparent in Barack Obama, in Richard Dawkins, in Al Gore, and in many here, if not most.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 7:31 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-09-2010 7:39 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 10-09-2010 7:57 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 10-09-2010 8:16 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 4:25 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 58 of 177 (585864)
10-10-2010 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
10-09-2010 7:39 PM


crashfrog:
The discussions about climate change are happening at the conferences you so recently lampooned. The discussions about evolution are happening in the offices and labs of biological sciences. If you want to be a part of those discussions, nobody is stopping you but you.
BarackZero:
You said the foregoing in response to this comment I made:
"But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere."
By "that" I clearly meant the challenges that Global Warming is NOT anthropogenic, the challenge that evolution CANNOT AND DOES NOT explain what it purports to explain.
"THAT" is what I meant, and you know it. That is why you and your friends are so eager to pounce on my every word.
1. The "discussions about evolution" always take place with the firm conviction that nothing else can ever displace descent with modification, top down and bottom up, all the way.
Such discussions never consider, for a second, the countless shortfalls of Darwinism. On the contrary, they are all blinked away, dismissively, derisively. This is anti-scientific as my alleged inability to "wipe Al Gore's ass" in the lovely lexicon of your pal.
2. Likewise "discussions about Climate Change" formerly and recently "Global Warming" are never permitted unless they assume full anthropogenic cause and effect.
Otherwise the dissenter can simply go TRY to "wipe Al Gore's (oversize) ass" and fail miserably at the attempt.
*Science*, Darwin-style.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-09-2010 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by frako, posted 10-10-2010 7:52 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2010 5:28 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 59 of 177 (585866)
10-10-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nwr
10-09-2010 7:57 PM


nwr:
I have avoided posting, to reduce the "piling on" problem. However, up to now I don't think anybody has bothered to point out that there is no such thing as "AlGorianism", or that modern evolutionary theory has moved beyond what Darwin proposed and should not be referred to as "Darwinism".
But, hey, if you want to continue your rants, don't let me stop you. At least I can get some good entertainment as I laugh at your public display of gross ignorance. Incidentally, there's good news for you. Ignorance can actually be cured. All you have to do is take the time to actually study the science.
++++++++++++++++++
BarackZero replies to yet another ad hominem attack:
Why don't you tell eminent Darwinist, Michael Ruse, that "Darwinism" is not the appropriate word. His book, published in 1982, by Addison Wesley, was titled "Darwinism Defended."
His remarks are replete with "Darwinism."
Argue with one of your own, please.
Now as to "AlGorianism," it is a fervent belief, and you are one of the apostles. Your ignorance of the creation of new words relevant to discovery and enlightenment is lamentable.
Name one promoter of anthropogenic global warming/climate change who is better known throughout America than Al Gore, and I will change the moniker to that hypocritical individual.
I have studied the science, and with greater scientific and economic acumen than you possess.
The fact is that so many *environmentalists* blather so very much, while personally doing so little of what they insist everyone ELSE do.
Sickening, stunning hypocrisy, a la Al Gore, the master of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 10-09-2010 7:57 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 10-10-2010 10:40 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 2:52 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 61 of 177 (585869)
10-10-2010 8:01 AM


"Carbon dioxide concentration isn't measured in pixels." - AlGorian reply to my graph
Please pay attention. I know, science is hard.
You see, scientists the world over, not to mention thoughtful people in all disciplines, use graphs to REPRESENT quantities.
Lines are purposefully drawn to indicate, oh, years, or pounds, or Kelvins. Not that those distances between lines on graphs really ARE years or pounds or Kelvins themselves. That's just what they depict, as a method of instantly conveying information.
Likewise, since the medium at hand here is the internet, and images appear on a monitor, all images are necessarily composed of individual pixels. The dot above the "i" in "pixels" is one pixel.
Are you with me so far, Pixie?
Now the reason I indicated anthropogenic carbon dioxide as one pixel in depth is that you cannot draw a line on a monitor any smaller than one pixel. So to minimize the overall height of the graph, I minimized the smallest component, viz. anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The graph is still huge despite my efforts to shrink it and keep everything to scale.
Nothing seems to anger Darwinists and AlGorians as much as the advancement of scientific facts and perspectives. They instantly engage in such reprehensible tactics as the ad hominem attack, so masterfully exhibited by Omnivorous, I believe.
And the rest of the pack don't mind a bit how silly or hateful their fellow pack member gets. It's reminiscent of hyenas, eating their victim alive.
Edited by BarackZero, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by frako, posted 10-10-2010 8:08 AM BarackZero has replied
 Message 63 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 9:38 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 3:14 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2010 5:32 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 76 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2010 8:27 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 69 of 177 (585967)
10-10-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
10-10-2010 3:14 PM


Re: Graphs, a civil discussion
modulus:
Now - for full disclosure, I've not studied the subject in depth. From what I can see, it seems abundantly clear that AGW is a reality.
BarackZero:
1. It seems abundantly clear TO YOU that AGW is a reality.
Now assuming that were true, then WHY:
A. Are tens, indeed hundreds of thousands of AGW naysayers perpetually flying and driving around and around and around the world to declare that flying and driving around the world is so deadly? Please answer that before you go on.
B. WHY are any and all attempts to illustrate what is misleading about AGW universally met with hateful condemnation, after the fashion of your beloved Omnivorous, who referred to me as a "teenager" unfit to "wipe Al Gore's ass"?
How does that fit in your alleged goal of "Understanding through Discussion"?
C. Why do you utterly refuse to enforce Rule #10?
Modulus: // If you would like to persuade me that a scam has been perpetrated, then you will have to be persuasive. That means, among other things, being civil and assuming you are talking with someone who can follow along with discussion of a scientific issue, who can read through journal entries of novel disciplines and comprehend the gist of things.
BarackZero: I have spent a very long time merely defending a GRAPH! A GRAPH! That your pals feign MY ignorance and relentlessly attack ME when they know very well that I have presented a perfectly good graph is something YOU should address.
But, no, instead you jump in and pretend that I have not been "civil."
Nowhere have I called any of your pals "high schoolers."
I have not and will not say any of them are "unworthy of wiping Al Gore's ass." That's the stuff of Omnivorous. Brilliant, you must admit. Right on point with the "Global Warming Scam."
Now I can present graph after graph, and all you need do is to claim it is not "persuasive." But not in so many words.
No, much better is merely to focus, in most general terms, on MY ignorance. Deviate from the subject, and press your hateful points home.
Oh, and disregard Rule #10 and "Understanding through Discussion." It's the left's sine qua non.
Modulus:
Maybe, by example, we can demonstrate to the 'hyenas' how civilized people who have some disagreements can come to understanding through discussion.
BarackZero:
ONLY when you have begun to address the hyenas, and their style.
Only then. Incidentally, where does one find a classroom or a conference room where "ignorance" and "stupidity" and "insanity" are so eagerly and often bandied about as they are by your peers?
I have yet to find one, and I have discussions with scholarly people quite often. I even pointed out a number of errors on one professor's website. His laziness was remarkable, as he admitted to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 10-10-2010 6:41 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 8:01 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 10-12-2010 3:30 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024