The Global Warming Scam

Global Warming - *science*Global Warming is about as *scientific* as Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

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.

A 55ppm increase in Carbon Monoxide in your bedroom is something to be alarmed about, despite how small that is compared with the other things that make up the atmosphere of your bedroom.

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.

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 ...

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."