Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 7:20 AM
133 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Scam
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2928 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 106 of 177 (595738)
12-10-2010 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Nuggin
10-19-2010 8:56 PM


Re: Im sure you've been beaten up about this already...
Noggin: But I love a good dog pile!

[anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.]

quote:
First of all, if you have a tight rope walker who's using a balance bar and the balance bar weighs 10lbs, adding .3 lbs to one end of that bar and not the other is going to have a very distinct effect.

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:
Assuming your data is correct (and I have my doubts), you are still talking about 3.4% of CO2 which is being added annual above and beyond what the atmosphere can get rid of. That's tipping the scale.

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:
Lastly, let's talk about your politics for a second.

Yes, let's.

quote:
What EXACTLY is the problem with reducing green house emissions?

Let's pretend that you are absolutely correct and that human CO2 has little effect on the environment. Further, let's pretend that even if we zero'd out emissions we'd still see a warming trend.

Okay.

So, what's the HARM in zeroing out emissions? What's the HARM in reducing the burning of coal, for example? What's the HARM in increasing free energy from renewable resources?

I hear a lot of people like yourself complaining about the "scam" as though there was some negative effect from reducing pollution and increasing energy independence.

So far the ONLY time I've had someone try and explain the "problem" they were saying that some people were making money off the change. As if there weren't people making money off the current system.

So, spin us a tale. What EXACTLY is the "worst case scenario" from cleaning up our act and cutting back on pollution?


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2010 8:56 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 12-10-2010 2:28 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2928 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 107 of 177 (595740)
12-10-2010 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Taz
11-19-2010 12:46 AM


Taz:
quote:
I've always wondered why conservatives are so against improving our technology to become less dependent on foreign oil. I mean... is there a reason why conservatives are so intent on sucking up to foreign oil companies? Is it written in the bible somewhere? Did jesus say "thou shalt depend on foreign oil"?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Taz, posted 11-19-2010 12:46 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Taz, posted 12-10-2010 2:51 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 112 by frako, posted 12-10-2010 5:35 PM BarackZero has responded
 Message 113 by Meldinoor, posted 12-10-2010 11:49 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2928 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 108 of 177 (595741)
12-10-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Taq
11-19-2010 12:19 PM


tag:
quote:
BarackZero,

What do you think happens when you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in an atompshere? (SIC) Do you trap more heat, less heat, or the same amount of heat? It's a simple question.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 11-19-2010 12:19 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 12-10-2010 1:21 PM BarackZero has responded
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2010 1:42 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 109 of 177 (595798)
12-10-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:24 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:24 AM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:29 AM Taq has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 177 (595806)
12-10-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:09 AM


Re: Im sure you've been beaten up about this already...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:09 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1366 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 111 of 177 (595814)
12-10-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:17 AM


BarackZero writes:

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?


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.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:17 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 112 of 177 (595853)
12-10-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:17 AM


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 SIDE
Cheper power??
Smog free cities??
Healthier people??
nicer weather????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:17 AM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:32 AM frako has responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 113 of 177 (595884)
12-10-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:17 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:17 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by bluescat48, posted 12-11-2010 12:15 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 114 of 177 (595886)
12-11-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Meldinoor
12-10-2010 11:49 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Meldinoor, posted 12-10-2010 11:49 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2928 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 115 of 177 (595887)
12-11-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
12-10-2010 1:21 PM


tag:
quote:
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.

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:
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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 12-10-2010 1:21 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2010 1:29 AM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 12-13-2010 3:51 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2928 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 116 of 177 (595888)
12-11-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by frako
12-10-2010 5:35 PM


frako:
quote:
So tell me what is THE DOWN SIDE
Cheper power??
Smog free cities??
Healthier people??
nicer weather????

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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by frako, posted 12-10-2010 5:35 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2010 1:31 AM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 120 by frako, posted 12-11-2010 5:34 AM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 121 by frako, posted 12-11-2010 11:15 AM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 122 by frako, posted 12-11-2010 11:53 AM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 124 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-11-2010 11:16 PM BarackZero has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 117 of 177 (595891)
12-11-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:29 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:29 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 118 of 177 (595892)
12-11-2010 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:32 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:32 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 119 of 177 (595893)
12-11-2010 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:24 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:24 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 120 of 177 (595899)
12-11-2010 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:32 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:32 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by bluescat48, posted 12-11-2010 3:04 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019