calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 One more thing - this planet is growing a greater human population all the time. and mankind is destroying green space and paving and cement and building over top of it. There. That's a major thing that partisan sniping over CO2 and lawn mowing and not enough money and taxes....etc etc etc etc doesn't admit. Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more and more over time. These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it. Why? No freakin money it for liberal causes. No grants to be had for it. No political advantage for votes and $$$$$$$$$$ for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 You're talking about the OISM petition? Haven't we been through why that's irrelevant already? You talk about 'scientists' disagreeing, but the scientists signing the petition are biologists, physicists, chemists etc - not climatologists, who are the actual experts. Just because I have a postgraduate degree in theoretical finance - including advanced statistcs, stochastic calculus and quantitative modelling methodologies - doesn't mean that I'm qualified to give an *expert* opinion on climate. I can relay what the science says, because I'm relatively intelligent and articulate, but that doesn't mean I'm an expert, and it's those people who have dedicated their lives to research in this field we should be listening to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken. A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool. That would make the danger worse each and every day. Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons. My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint. As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse. Can you explain to me why I am wrong? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken. A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool. That would make the danger worse each and every day. Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons. My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint. As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse. Can you explain to me why I am wrong? WSS OK, let's make a slight tweak to your situation to make it more representative of the situation. You have a pool of 1000 gallons of ammonia. This is perfectly fine, and keeps the garden shiny and new. If there's too much ammonia, the garden will be in danger, and if there's not enough ammonia, the garden will be in danger for different reasons. Now, every day, you get rainfall in to your pool of something around a pint of ammonia, sometimes more, sometimes less. But, something like a pint of ammonia is used in keeping the garden shiny (hence why if there's not enough it's in danger). So it roughly evens itself out. Now, if you start adding pints of ammonia yourself every day, you'll quickly find that the amount coming in to the system is exceeding the amount going out on a regular basis. This causes problems for your garden. You realise this is a problem, but because of your fertilization techniques (see, I know *something* about farming!), you have a load of ammonia that means you need to dump a pint a day, so you can't just stop. What you can do, is plant a few extra plants, trees and everything else that uses the ammonia, so that a pint and a few ounces are being used every day instead of a pint, while at the same time you reduce the amount of ammonia you're dumping every day. Eventually, you'll find a balance where the amount of ammonia is stable. If you reduce your ammonia waste enough, you'll find that you can actually start to reduce the overall level of ammonia, because you've increased the level of consumption. At some point in the future, you'll be back to a normal level, and you'll potentially be able to increase the ammonia waste, because you would otherwise be creating a deficiency. I hope that makes sense to you - feel free to poke holes in it, but it's the general gist of it. Like losing weight - say I'm putting on a pound a day. Through proper eating and exercising, I start putting on only 12oz every day for a month. Next month it's 10oz. Then 8oz. Eventually, I'm not putting on any weight at all, and then I start losing weight. Eventually, I reach my ideal weight and I can adopt a more sustainable diet and exercise regime. But if I don't do it quickly enough, I might have a heart attack, I might get diabetes, or any number of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Actually I was just curious. Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone? (plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad... ) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Actually I was just curious. Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone? (plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad... ) WSS Kind of. It's not like the earth relies on us to produce carbon dioxide for it - after all, we contribute a tiny amount relative to nature - but we are just tipping it over the edge of what it can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back. You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back. You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates. WSS I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same. There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same. There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down. I can't honestly remember the level of hysterics about lead in gasoline. I also have no idea if there are many other sources of lead in the atmosphere and what percentage was removed by eliminating it in gasoline. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more and more over time. These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it. Scientists are talking about. A search of the scientific literature using Google Scholar suggests they've talked about it 20,000 times. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=co2+and+%22global+warming%22+and+%22plant+growth%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&as_vis=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 one ingredient I do remember is hexa chlorophene. another is sodium and or calcium cyclamate. one more might be red dye number 5. all of which are easily lived without and who knows how much overall improvement the world has seen from the elimination. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 CO2 is not lead. It is not a poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 "boo hoo, Steve, Cal posts from the Blaze, whine, complain....." Okay. This article is not from the Blaze. Read the frickin thing, and realize that I am far more correct on the issue than you are, Mr. "the debate is over, 97%....bs" Man. Don't make me post the contents instead of just the link, after you complained about that. http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists. http://xkcd.com/435/ Lol, I've seen that before. But don't you EVER compare me to a biologist... I'm not a math major, but I've been around the block. One of my courses freshman year was Honors Theoretical Differential Equations. Soundsvool at least, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 You complain about us not reading your posts. Truth is I do. I looks like you don't read my responses though. In that last "mmgw" thread where you went on a rant on a rant of posts, I addressed a good number of them and debunked them. Some of which you are posting again here. You do a very good job of following that "science denial checklist" I posted. Damn near exactly. If you want to go one by one, that would be better. But you just pulling 20 claims out of your ass each post and then not backing any up does no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 I was talking to Chris, not you, you woodypeckerhead moron. And, of course, posting stuff that contradicts your'alls mmgw baloney is nonsense. And, like I have said in the past, you just ignored the content of the post. Look, I'm just a regular guy, but you make me look like a behaviorial scientist. You can't help it, I have your number. You walk, talk, pout and post just like what you are. A sissy little woodypeckerhead. Now grow up, and let the rest of us have a political board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Hahaha. Did you just ignore the responses in the last thread then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/dennis-miller-mocks-global-warming-believers-i-like-the-old-days-when-the-polar-vortex-was-known-as-pelosis-stare/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Lol, I've seen that before. But don't you EVER compare me to a biologist... I'm not a math major, but I've been around the block. One of my courses freshman year was Honors Theoretical Differential Equations. Soundsvool at least, right? WTF... you got something against biologists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 WTF... you got something against biologists? ... Ummm... No. They're great. Just uh, not for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/dennis-miller-mocks-global-warming-believers-i-like-the-old-days-when-the-polar-vortex-was-known-as-pelosis-stare/ Wow, another idiot that uses the reasoning "It is cold where I an right now" as evidence against climate change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 No, a comedian. Obviously, you don't know the difference between a climate scientist and a comedian. Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 ... Ummm... No. They're great. Just uh, not for me. LOL. I've got three words for you. Human Genome Project! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 "boo hoo, Steve, Cal posts from the Blaze, whine, complain....." Okay. This article is not from the Blaze. Read the frickin thing, and realize that I am far more correct on the issue than you are, Mr. "the debate is over, 97%....bs" Man. Don't make me post the contents instead of just the link, after you complained about that. http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/ Do you really expect me to sit down and read an 84-page document on my weekend? No, of course you don't, so you can merrily claim I don't read the link you posted. As it happens, I've read the first dozen or so pages while cooking. Notes on this: 1) It's talking about how climate change Is viewed in the media, not any actual facts about climate change. It's asking whether things are being reported correctly in whatever the opposite of the blaze is, whichever sensationalist newspaper runs an article proclaiming the end of the world, with some handy visual showing the fireballs raining down. 2) It's written by SINTEF - a Scandinavian tech/engineering research company. That seems legit until you read what they've actually been researching, which is essentially technology for energy companies. I wonder how long an article published by them proclaiming that oil companies are the bad guys would last before their funding was withdrawn? 3) Regarding the conclusions drawn, this paper talks about scientific agreement about climate change and how it affects us. It's true that there is debate among climatologists as to the extent of the effects that global warming will have - will we be dead in 5 years, or will the planet be fine for another 100 years, at which point we're all a little warmer, but generally fine? This debate is healthy, and productive and should be wholly free of politicizing. Yet even this report states that "the level of agreement in the scientific literature that AGW is occurring is quite extensive" 4) This article attempts to critique the consensus finding work done prior to its publication in 2013. It brings up well discussed points that potentially the work of Oreskes somewhat in doubt - at least slightly exaggerated. It fails to address the more recent study by Cook, Nuticelli et al of 2011, sampling, rather than 928 papers as Oreskes did, but nearly 12,000 papers (see my link above). It's that where the 97% comes from, not an opinion poll or anything like that. So there, I've read through the abstract, the introduction, the 'completely unbiased look at the 4 climate change myths', the critique of consensus, the conclusions drawn and have posted a rebuttal. Would you care to extend the same courtesy to any science that is posted? Or are you going to call me a lefty liberal marxist that just wants to steal your money and will automatically reject anything you post? And as for your second link - to a guy on a chat show? Remind me why we should care what he thinks? And even so, he's wrong. His whole point is based on the fact that America had a cold winter due to the polar vortex, and that doesn't sound like global warming. This is ignoring the fundamental points of global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it, that extreme weather in either direction becomes more frequent, while global average temperatures increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Good post Chris and good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 All you really need, Chris, is a significant number of scientists who DISAGREE, to render your wishful thinking "debate is over"... invalid. And, Miller is a comedian. It was funny. Figures you would bitch about it. Look, there is a very interesting, and legit, correlation between solar activity and gw. It's entertaining that you switched to "climate change" as a fall back position created by the mmgw wonks who see their "consensus" fading fast. The THEORY of mmgw is fine as a theory. I've always said, I just want to know the truth, and "virtually all scientists know your cows farting needs to be taxed, etc" doesn't convince me or about half? of America of any need to fall in line with the liberal agenda, nor the UN's alleged mandate to get a whole lot of money from us for development of the rest of the poor world on this earth. And no, you didn't coin "climate change"...but it's interesting that "global warming" is falling in popularity as a liberal political persuasive device, and the new term "climate change" is kind of undeniable - since climate changes, ya? The article I posted, simply talks about the two sides of the mmgw issue. Meaning, there is absolutely zero "debate over". Just because libs can't make money off the stopping of the destruction of the earth's virgin rain forests, and they can't tax and fine the sun, doesn't mean that we can't have a more inclusive debate over what is, and isn't, going on. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Seems Margaret Thatcher, who had a degree in chemistry is the one who started perpetuating this hoax. Interesting read... http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 "All available evidence indicates that man made global warming is a physical impossibility." The opening line itself would make me as skeptical of this article as I am of the extent as well as the possibility or even likelihood of reversal. I am no alarmist and I do believe the situation is being exaggerated for political gain and profit. But when the first line right out of the box is bullshit why I keep reading? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Good point Steve. Let me know if you stumble on any of those old reports heck would post that called for doomsday and were scientific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.