The Global Warming Scam

frako:still you base you calculations on this logic: "there is to little of the substance compared to all other substances in the air to have an effect"try taking one pixel of LSD compared to the pixel size of your body and then say there is to little of it to have any effect.BarackZero responds:Dear Frako,How much is a "pixel" of LSD? You see, I represented a graph for purposes of displaying it on a computer, where everything is transmitted by pixels. Organic compounds are measured in micrograms, milligrams, and grams.I fully understand the implications of trace amounts some substance can have on human physiology. One researcher died when her organomercuric compound leaked through her rubber glove. It acted as an enzyme.But the topic of this thread, which I originated, is The Global Warming Scam. This scam always, begins with outrageous claims of the prophetic dangers of carbon dioxide. I put those concentrations into perspective, and everyone here has gone ballistic as a result.Most unscientific of them.Don't lecture ME on "logic" again. Tell me what you know about chemistry. Do that. But don't pretend that you know logic and I do not. It is a Big Lie perpetuated by scammers.

Inadequate: To be more accurate, you put those concentrations into a "perspective" that was dumber than a bag of hammers, and many people pointed out your silly mistake.BarackZero responds:To be "MORE" accurate you would first have to be ACCURATE.You have not been. You resort to nothing but generalities and insults.
Shameful. Anti-scientific, and anti-intellectual.

Nuggin: So now, we have the tight rope walker with the 1/3 lb weight on one end of his balance bar and a couple helium balloons tied to the other.BarackZero: Notwithstanding your strawman, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Global Warming Scam, balance rods are sufficiently long and heavy that 1/3 of a pound would have absolutely NO impact on the tightrope walker.Next:Nuggin: Lastly, let's talk about your politics for a second.What EXACTLY is the problem with reducing green house emissions?BarackZero: EXCELLENT QUESTION. Thank you.
The answer is obvious. Leftists wish to control the lives of everyone, and in this case, reducing your energy usage 80% would result in a permanent depression of unprecedented proportions.Why don't the EnviroWackos go first, hmmmm?Nuggin with two successive pretensions: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?BarackZero: Asked and answered.
WHY do the very preachers of this doomsday scenario continue to globe trot day after day after day? Simply Google "environmental conferences" to see the list of parties attended by hypocrites who COULD but DO NOT videoconference.Nuggin:So, spin us a tale. What EXACTLY is the "worst case scenario" from cleaning up our act and cutting back on pollution?BarackZero:1. YOU SELL YOUR car.
2. Never again take a vacation.
3. Never again heat your home.
4. Never again cook your food.
5. No more hot showers.
6. Stay at home and watch the grass grow.Have a nice life.

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.

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?

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.

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

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."

ZenMonkey:

quote:

---

You'd rather have the global depression that will (not could, will) follow the rapidly approaching end of viable fossil fuel energy, with no more gas for your SUV's, no industry, and the whole industrialized world busted down to a smoldering third world slag heap? Who's gonna be living in the shanty-towns in the woods then?

---

Your errors are many.
1. You pretend that creating an immediate and permanent global depression is preferable to what you CLAIM is a later, certain-to-follow global depression.2. Your fearful claims have been regurgitated throughout the past several decades, first by the Club of Rome. You DO remember them, don't you? "We're all gonna starve, we're all gonna starve!"3. Jimbo Carter, far left-wing lunatic, said we were going to run out of fossil fuel in the 1990s.
Hello! McFly. Anybody home?Let's move on to your next bit of gobbledy-gook.

quote:

---

And just to touch on one of the AGW denier talking points that you brought up, please don't whine about how all those evil billionaire environmentalist hippies who have all the power in this country have ruined the economy by blocking more oil drilling in ANWR. Did you know that if you sucked out all of the recoverable oil that might be available in ANWR - 'cuz no-one knows for sure - that you'd have less than half of what already exists in the US oil reserves? It wouldn't even be available until 2018, would take about 20 years to extract most of it, and it would be about enough to feed the US's current consumption of oil for - wait for it - maybe a year and a half? Yeah, that would solve everything, wouldn't it?

---

That sure does move back that "third world slag heap" you were predicting, doesn't it.
Moreover, there are considerable reserves in Canada stored in oil shales. Our technology continues to improve with respect to not only recovering oil but also in locating it.Please contact your pals at the Club of Rome to learn how and why technology will let us down. Again. Luddites like them and you are not to be believed. They've/you've been so wrong so many times in the past, why should they/you be believed now?

quote:

---

You want to know what "Drill, baby, drill!" really means? It means "We're going to **** up one of the few remaining remaining places that we haven't ****** up already for no real reason, just because we can. So **** you, hippies!"

---

How vulgar and unscholarly of you. But at least you're consistent.

quote:

---

"Honestly", AGW deniers and the ilk seem to want to treat this planet like drunk frat boys who've trashed the first floor of the house and burned most of the furniture in the fireplace, but hey, there's no problem, there's gotta be some more stuff upstairs to toss on the fire, and why not shit on the carpet here while were at it?

---

1. I have never been in any fraternity.
2. Pollution is far worse in third world countries than it is in the United States.
3. Your god, Al Gore, is one of the world's worst examples of abusing resources.
4. Your fellow environmentalist cohort, Theodore Kaczynski, burned through $50,000,000 of resources while killing and bombing and maiming before he was captured in a rathole shack in the woods. On his table was a dog-eared copy of Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance.You should be very proud of Ted, as well as the many enviro-wackos who have:A. Burned Hummers at dealerships
B. Spiked trees, to injure lumberjacks
C. Burned down ski resorts
D. Burned down new housing projects
E. Attempted to destroy electric power poles
F. Driven their cars into towns solely in order to commit property destruction to further their/your extremist causesand on and on.My favorite environmentalist wacko comment comes from Cheryl Crow. While attracting hordes of sycophantic lemmings who collectively drove thousands and thousands of miles to her concerts, Cheryl told them the way to protect the environment is to use a single sheet of toilet paper. Next time you have a massive and soft bowel movement, try that, Al Gorian. Just use a single sheet of bung fodder. That should save Mother Gaia, you betcha.