Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 177 (585551)
10-08-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 5:38 PM


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.
... in which you juggle irrelevant figures to create a false impression.
It is indeed 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.
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.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:38 PM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:23 PM Dr Adequate has 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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 20 of 177 (585556)
10-08-2010 6:25 PM


BarackZero,
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?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 21 of 177 (585558)
10-08-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:23 PM


"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.
Sea levels are rising, increased carbon dioxide does trap more heat in the atmosphere, and polar bear habitat is shrinking. These are all facts, chief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:23 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 22 of 177 (585560)
10-08-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:20 PM


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.
You continue to post comments that just make you look like a buffoon. For example I am a Christian and have been a registered Republican for over a half century. The first political campaign I got involved in was Ike's run for a second term.
The problem is you simply don't seem to be thinking things through.
As has been pointed out to you, the less the human contribution is to Global Warming gasses, the more we must reduce the human contribution and then also find ways to reduce the natural contribution.
I will say that since Reagan, the Republican Party has been populated by idiots and unfortunately, many like Reagan himself that should have been charged as traitors.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:20 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 23 of 177 (585562)
10-08-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:20 PM


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.
These are not extrapolations. They are interpolations of real data points. The y-axis is linear in scale with no stretching or breaking, and it fits all of the historic and modern measurements of carbon dioxide. Here is an example:
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 has very, very measurable greenhouse effects.
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."
Since we are talking about the EFFECT of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect then that should be the perspective, should it not? Increasing a known major greenhouse gas by 25% in a 200 year span is going to have an effect on the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:20 PM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:43 PM Taq 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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 177 (585564)
10-08-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:20 PM


BarackZero writes:
See-oh-two follows temperatures, not the other way around.
How does that work, exactly? How does an increase in temperature cause an increase in CO2 output?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:20 PM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:51 PM ringo has 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 28 of 177 (585571)
10-08-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:51 PM


BarackZero writes:
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.
Are you saying that if I keep a can of soda cold, CO2 will not bubble out of the soda?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:51 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 177 (585572)
10-08-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:51 PM


BarackZero writes:
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.
So you're saying that when the oceans warm up they release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Do you have any figures on the amount of change in ocean temperature and the corresponding change in solubility? We need to figure out whether those numbers tally with the known increase in atmospheric CO2.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:51 PM BarackZero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 7:23 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 30 of 177 (585573)
10-08-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 6:43 PM


Everyone here please sacrifice your own lives and happiness to cut that down to .27%. I pass.
like you haveto go and live in the stone age to help, little things can add up to a grate deal and you can save some cash while you are at it.
small things you can do
get energy eficient light bulbs saves on your electric bill and the coal company may burn a little less of coal.
i have a master switch in the house witch turnes everything totaly off when i leave the house those little red standby lights burn suprisingly a lot.
a car whit loads of hp can also be envioramentaly conciuss, i curently have a passat 105 HP on average i burn 5,5 L per 100 Km, the 150 HP version burns evan less on average.
carpooling is not a bad thing it saves money and if the persons in the carpool work and live nearby it is not a very big hassle
insulating your house will save cash to in the long run and the enviorment gets a bit of help.
currently if you have enough money or can afford a credit you can make money on solar pannels in slovenia if you sell the power they make the profit alone from the exsess power pays the pannels off in 7 years and they have a warenty of 10-15 years the only problem is they aint cheap 200 000EUR for my house
all of this and more saves you money or evan earns you some and it also helps the enviorment so where is the downside ??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:43 PM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 6:47 PM frako 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