The Global Warming Scam

What is so funny is that the higher he makes the natural contribution the MORE we need to reduce the man made contribution, may even below zero.The lower he makes the natural carbon sinks the more man made carbon sinks we will need.

---

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

No he didn't. He claimed the core was several million degrees and that at just two kilometres down there were some really hot rocks in most places.It's still wrong - but if you're going to criticise someone for getting something wrong it doesn't look good on you if you get wrong what it is they were wrong about.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sorry, kid, but your inability to master the simple software of this forum makes your posts nearly unintelligible.The quote system is remarkably simple; all the buttons are right there. Is there some congenital difficulty that blocks your use of it?I could make out this part, though: See how easy that is?If you didn't want to talk about Al Gore's relative intelligence, you shouldn't have brought it up.Yes, you originated this crap, including your assertion of Al Gore's low intelligence and your brilliant understanding of climate science that exceeds that of actual climate scientists. Clearly, you cannot have reached that judgment without having exceeded Al Gore's meager station.So support what you originated: Let's see your vita.You don't have to reveal your name, just your qualifications and achievements. You could begin by comparing your undergraduate record with Gore's cum laude at Harvard. You felt Al Gore's academic record was relevant enough to distort; go ahead, you can lie about yours, too. No one will know. I think you're a high school brat without the stature to wipe Al Gore's ass.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Ah yes, the intolerance, the sheer intolerance, of daring to disagree with you.Feel free to whine about how politically incorrect you find this. Or you could try producing some facts that support your side of the argument.N.B: The claim that Al Gore eats shrimp, while it may be a fact, rather falls down on the "support your side of the argument" clause.

I do not, in fact "know it" (you should really stop making stuff up, it doesn't help your case) but I am perfectly ready to be convinced.Please quote me someone saying that rises in carbon dioxide levels initiate the ends of glacial periods. Aw, poor you.So --- excuse me for asking --- but if you are not willing to argue your case, what are you doing here? Are you posting on these forums merely to exhibit your capacity for self-pity?If so, I think that your point has now been made.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.If you rush your answers, then you are likely to be unclear and fail to communicate your points successfully.So, my well-meant advice is: STOP...and breathe.
Take your time and focus on quality and not speed.Edited by Panda, : Shortened for clarity

Are you saying that we don’t accurately measure CO2 in the atmosphere? NOAA CO2 measuring stations include: Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, Trinidad Head in California, Tutulia in American Samoa, and the South Pole. I’m confident there are more. Which ones do not measure accurately and why the spike in recent years? If the increasing trend is natural then what natural processes are causing it? Think 140 BILLION gallons of gasoline burned per year in the US alone just to power vehicles not counting the diesel and heavy oil used to generate electricity and the diesel fuel to power trucks and construction and farm equipment. And that’s just from fossil fuels. What about agricultural field burning, man caused forest fires and what ever other human activity adds to the CO2 load in the atmosphere. Is there no chance that all of this would significantly increase CO2 levels? Is there no way to draw a relationship between CO2 level increase and the warming trend we are seeing or do you reject this too?

---

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."
Voltaire

Perhaps you should take your own advice here. There is no way to get more water vapor in the atmosphere without first raising the temperature. The half life of water vapor is about 7 days. It is always near equilibrium with the temperature. Compare this to carbon dioxide which has an atmospheric half life in the tens of years. Also, it doesn't precipitate out like water does. When you up the carbon dioxide levels it traps more heat for a much longer time period and puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. That is what produces temperature last I checked. Why shouldn't it be important in a discussion on average global temperatures? Of course it is since it is the only source of heat for the Earth. Why are you so obsessed with Al Gore? It's a bit creepy, if you ask me. Global climate change is more than Al Gore, you know.

So let's put this altogether then. Carbon dioxide released by man traps more heat in the atmosphere. More heat causes more water to evaporate and increases the warming from water vapor. These two factors then heat the oceans releasing even more carbon dioxide and increasing the temperature even more. So it would seem the me that even small increases of carbon dioxide can have a chain effect, don't you agree?

Don't expect much sympathy from me after your absurd and insulting accusations. They don't even make sense: If nobody wants to consider what you have to say why are so many people responding? You're welcome. You did seem kind of confused about it, and you still do: Right, but again - we don't measure gas concentrations in pixels, so the size of a computer monitor it would take to display a line a million pixels tall is a complete irrelevancy. You're right. Nitrogen gas is completely irrelevant - that's 80% of our atmosphere we can eliminate from the graph, saving 60,000 pixels or so. Same with oxygen (same reason, no dipole moment), so we can take out 15,000 pixels. Argon, neon, H2 - also IR inactive.Water vapor? Water vapor doesn't force warming, it's forced by it, because atmospheric water vapor has such a short half-life of suspension due to the hydraulic cycle. So water vapor is irrelevant to climate change, as well - the atmosphere is always going to have just as much water vapor as it should, there's no way to have extra vapor because the excess simply falls out as rain.So, you're right. Just by taking out the gases that really aren't relevant to consideration, suddenly we're talking about a lot narrower graph. We're not lying; you are. The lies are coming from your side, the side that denies anthropogenic climate change. There is no time lag, so there's nothing to explain. Increased CO2 warms climate almost immediately. No, it is exactly the other way around - CO2 increases lead climate warming, which feeds back by releasing CO2 from temperature-sensitive sinks. There's no "time lag", that's a lie promoted by climate change denialists like yourself. I heard he's fat. Therefore climate change is a hoax, right?

I think 0 is trying to talk about how the ends of ice ages start before the CO₂ feedback cycle kicks in. Is that not the case? I had understood that that's how it works.Obviously, though, as you say, CO₂ causes warming immediately --- how could it not?

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 ****.

Do you plan on providing anything to support your assertion that there is some "Global Warming Scam"?

---

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

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.

Your response is off-topic.
Did you even read the OP?