Global Warming Debate

[Dewey Benson]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Dewey: What point? Please state it!

LOL!!!! Your kidding...Right?

You can't possibly be that thick!

Same point each time! Ranging from you had to figure it out (a little teeny bit) to stated flat out in the open.

Since you don't care for or seem to understand somthing unless it's presented verbosly. I don't know if I can adequately express the "point".

I shall try:

political style jabs, and suspect analogy, and cute litte anecdotal "evidence " does not belong in science.

Thats it...yeah the previous paragraph...thats right...WAKE UP DUDE!

I don't care where evidence leads (other than to the truth) but I get pissed when crap is offerd as evidence. Spell it again so you can understand; Crap=political style jabs,suspect analogy, anecdotal evidence. These techniques are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

I'm going to try and help you out now, since there is a high probability that you are unaware of scientific method. I realise you may be reluctant to believe me sooooo...I shall try very hard to source this out to somthing you can trust. If you should like a good basic grounding in science (and I believe there isn't a word in these books about global warming). Please add two books to your reading list. These were written by a gentlman now dead, whom you may recognise as a noted Science fiction writer, you may or may not be aware that he was also a noted scientist. Google his name and you shall find he was actually more prolific as a published scientist than as a fiction writer.

Issac Asimov;
The intelligent mans guide to the physical sciences
The intellegent mans guide to the biological sciences

I am begining to come to the conclusion that global warming is a fact and that it's primary cause is human.... but it has nothing to do with co2:

It's from the friction heat generated on your ******* keyboard!

Dewey

[tdw]

Originally Posted by Dewey Benson

I am begining to come to the conclusion that global warming is a fact and that it's primary cause is human.... but it has nothing to do with co2:

It's from the friction heat generated on your ******* keyboard!

Dewey

Ah come on DB, there must be a bit of hot air involved as well !! Surely ?

[Valiente]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Valiente:


***As I've posted elsewhere, CO2 levels are at ~ 350 parts per million of the atmosphere. Of that, 5% is due to Man's activities, which means Man is responsible for roughly 18 ppm's worth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

A liter is said to have 20,000 drops of water. A million drops would be 50 liters of water or, roughly, 13 US gallons. It is very, very difficult to imagine that 18 drops can impact the thermodynamics of 13 gallons worth of fluid. To accept such a statement, any reasoning mind would require entire orders of magnitude more proof than the trillions of dollars already wasted on this issue has generated.

History shows us that this mindset, and its attraction to power, is nothing new.

Citations, please, for your statements.

The 18 drops not making a difference shows a lack of understanding of the differing nature of materials. Certain poisons (plutonium, mercury, ricin, dioxin) are toxic enough to kill at that level, just as low numbers of chlorine compound molecules in the right spot in the atmosphere can affect a far larger number of ozone molecules. The ban on CFC usage, and the subsequent recovery in part of the polar ozone layers has illustrated fairly persuasively, I think, not only that small amounts of industrial chemicals can have large environmental effects. The retirement of such compounds and the subsequent remediation of the ozone layer being a case in point. Stop crapping somewhere, and eventually the place stops smelling like crap.

While I could comfortably debate the best approaches to cease the fouling of our collective nest (and I will agree there are some spectacular boondoggles at the moment, such as ethanol production and CF lights), I can't debate someone who argues in all sincerity that man has no effect on nature, because it puts you in my mind with Flat Earthers and creationists, people so willfully obscurantist as to be a drag on the species.

[camaraderie]

Val...all the summaries and citations you need for CO2 statements made by Rags may be found here. http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

I don't think anyone is saying that man doesn't have an impact on nature...or that pollution is good...or that there is no global warming. What we are saying is that in THIS particular case...there is no evidence that man is contributing in any meaningful way to CO2 atmospheric levels...that CO2 level increase is an EFFECT of natural global warming which is cyclical and comes AFTER warming....that CO2 increases may actually be a good thing for plant life/food supplies and are certainly not pollutants...and that we neither claim warming or cooling is taking place since we don't as a species understand global climate enough to make predictions and applying ANY current theory of global warming to actual conditions in the past results in a broken model that does not correlate to what has actually happened already.
I agree with you that a few drops of something can be MOST damaging depending on the substance but it is the relatively miniscule amount of the SAME substance produced massively by nature that we are discussing here...not an ounce of Plutonium or an Ebola virus. The equivilent of 3 ounces of water added to a gallon of water from ALL of mans activity.

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[RAGNAR]

zzzzz

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[cardiacpaul]

more crackpot citations...
check this looney toon out before you spout off any of his numbers...

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

"In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

I ain't buyin' any of it....

[ReverendMike]

Originally Posted by Dewey Benson

I don't care where evidence leads (other than to the truth) but I get pissed when crap is offerd as evidence. Spell it again so you can understand; Crap=political style jabs,suspect analogy, anecdotal evidence. These techniques are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

I'm going to try and help you out now, since there is a high probability that you are unaware of scientific method. I realise you may be reluctant to believe me sooooo...I shall try very hard to source this out to somthing you can trust. If you should like a good basic grounding in science (and I believe there isn't a word in these books about global warming). Please add two books to your reading list. These were written by a gentlman now dead, whom you may recognise as a noted Science fiction writer, you may or may not be aware that he was also a noted scientist. Google his name and you shall find he was actually more prolific as a published scientist than as a fiction writer.
Dewey

Dewey, I'm afraid you're wasting your time with this guy:

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

The Cat thing is a great example of how corrupt academia has been for a century.

When it was first thrown at me in OrgChem4 in HS (an intro to nuclear physics) I firgured that maybe I didn't have the chops to grasp the issue.

Ends up there is no issue -- it's a false alternative.

The only reason it stalls people is because of the collapse of epistemology in Western education -- the same collapse that is gving rise to mystisicism in the West.

This guy's a joke or a joker, depends on whether he realizes it or not...

(For those who don't get the joke: Organic chemistry 3 is generally taught in graduate school, first year Organic Chemistry is very rarely taught at some highschools, but those who take it would certainly be better informed about science than this guy. This guy really is amusing )

There's other posters on this site who are actually worth debating and who have something to say that's worth exploring. This troll isn't one of them.

(Admin. - sorry this got a bit personal, do what you gotta do)

[RAGNAR]

zzzz