Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 42    Average: 2.1/5]
176 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8119
Rating: 2.1
Category: Science
Date: 09/01/12 11:40 AM

176 Responses to The Boy Who Cried Global Warming

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    August 30, 2012 at 8:13 am
    Link: The Boy Who Cried Global Warming - Al Gore warned that polar bears were threatened, is it true? Is ANYTHING Gore said true?
  2. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:23 am
    Sacha Baron Cohen?
  3. Profile photo of Slotherder
    Slotherder Male 30-39
    251 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:28 am
    When will people learn to not listen to anything a politician says? Gore sees an agenda and does whatever he thinks will move his agenda along. That`s how politics is played. It`s not about backing up your stance with facts. it`s about appealing to emotional responses, getting people to react. Unfortunately, when it comes to science, even when the agenda is more in line with what the scientific community agrees on, politics will almost always screw up the facts for the purpose of emotional appeal. Unfortunately as well, it makes it easy for dolts on the opposing political side to point out the glaring emotional appeals and say "see?! it`s not facts!", then claim that the agenda is all wrong due to that.
  4. Profile photo of hi2pi
    hi2pi Male 30-39
    736 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:46 am
    5Cats Fails Again. What are you going to tell your grandkids when they ask why you worked against their planet?
  5. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:49 am
    Unfortunately today`s Environmental concerns (as we all have them and care about) are being used as a screen to change capitalism more then saving our planet.

    When they can`t get their political agenda voted in to place, they use the "Green" approach and regulate that same agenda into place.

    Unfortunately hurting the same environment they claim to be protecting.

    How many regulations are put on how we live with the goal changing our politics rather than our quality of life?
  6. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:59 am
    I think Carlin expressed it better
  7. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
    Oh great. Another piece of oil company-funded propaganda. Now I have to decide whether or not I really want to spend about six hours painstakingly pointing out all the errors of this hackwork by posting links to the papers of actual climatologists, such as those at our own NASA.

    Hmmm. I have some reading to do, so I think I`ll just post the link. Those who want to expand their knowledge of an important topic, see the link below. Those who prefer to believe propagandists who make an additional billion dollars or more for every year they confuse the public into believing global warming is a hoax--a hoax somehow perpetrated by NASA, the U.S. Navy, Stephen Hawking, The Japanese Meteorological Institute, and the National Academy of Sciences--I can`t help.

    NASA`s Global Climate Change Website
  8. Profile photo of denmarkcm
    denmarkcm Male 18-29
    341 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    Man Bear Pig is real!!! Im super CEREAL!!
  9. Profile photo of fuzzysheep
    fuzzysheep Male 18-29
    187 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    In a few years people will look on climate change sceptics with the same sadness and pity as moon landing deniers. It is happening, it is our fault, we need to stop it. Stop pretending it isn`t just so you don`t feel guilty about it, it`s pathetic and childish.
  10. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    The worldwide consensus of climate scientists is that global warming exists and that man is significantly affecting it. This consensus includes former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, who, upon reanalyzing all available data (and using serious Koch Brothers funding to do so, by the way), found that not only is it valid, that the problem may be even worse than though. Here (Christian Science Monitor). Ignore it and bash it all you want. That`s fine. I`m moving up near Canada when I retire.
  11. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    "I think Carlin expressed it better"

    Well, he is right that we are really killing OURSELVES, not the planet. The planet will be here when we are extinct. And people who are too lazy to do anything about it get what they deserve. Well, actually your grandchildren, etc. get punished but whatever, you`re dead by then, right?
  12. Profile photo of fuzzysheep
    fuzzysheep Male 18-29
    187 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    I`d post some of the absolute shedload of evidence that almost everyone who knows what they are talking about agrees global warming is happening but I know at this point we`ve gone beyond rational assessments of evidence. People who don`t believe in man made climate change have already decided to totally disregard the evidence in favour of believing a poisonous lie so that they can keep driving their 4x4 and sleep better at night. It`s sickening, dangerous and idiotic.
  13. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    fuzzysheep: *ding*!
  14. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    @SmagBoy: You rock. Thanks for posting that link. I`m hoping that it might open a few eyes.

    But in all probability CrakrJak will respond with something like "The Christian Science Monitor is a George Soros-front organization with ZERO credibility."

    ~sigh~
  15. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    So it`s getting warmer. I like warm weather. Not bothered.
  16. Profile photo of mcboozerilla
    mcboozerilla Male 30-39
    646 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    Why are you even posting this complete and utter poo, IAB? Shame on you.
  17. Profile photo of wolladude
    wolladude Male 30-39
    361 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    Too long.....

    What is it about?

    I want a resume before deciding to watch it.....
  18. Profile photo of bacon_pie
    bacon_pie Male 30-39
    3061 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    If I want to hear a tree talk, I`ll go watch Lord of the Rings.
  19. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    Good link 5Cats.

    As a general rule, anyone that cries that the sky is falling (with their hand out looking for money) is lying to you.

    Al Gore has become rich off scaring people with his BS for nearly a decade now. It`s time people woke up and realized he and his ilk are complete charlatans.
  20. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    vv I`m grateful that people like Crackrjak are Climate Change Deniers. Not all such people are Creationists who deny the scientific reality of Evolution, but a significant proportion of them are, such as our friend Crakrjak here.

    This level of scientific illiteracy is a strong advocation, in and of itself, that they`re probably also wrong about the science of Climatology. Which overwhelmingly points to rapid Climate Change which is (at least in part) caused by human activity.
  21. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 3:22 pm
    Yeah i haven`t had time to watch it, what`s the whole story in a nutshell?
  22. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    (i haven`t seen the video yet) But i just wanted to say it`s pretty clear that the globe is warming. I mean we just had a report last week that the ice caps were at the lowest point ever. But aside from that i live in canada we`ve always had snow, snow is normal up here. Remember the olympics.. hardly any snow, worries of no snow? We always had snow until i remember mowing the grass on christmas eve.. since then we`ve had more wet winters than white ones. In the last 50 years alone we`ve been pumping more and more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. IDK about you, but if you have a pool, and people keep peeing in it all summer long, you`re dang straight, it`s going to get pretty nasty by the fall. Same thing in our atmosphere, just a bigger pool, and a longer season.
  23. Profile photo of Steelgrid
    Steelgrid Male 30-39
    2700 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm
    "Al Gore has become rich off scaring people with his BS for nearly a decade now. It`s time people woke up and realized he and his ilk are complete charlatans. "

    You do realize that CHRISTIANS have done the exact same thing. Only they have been doing it for much longer than a few decades.

    Oh but thats right, Because its God the unprovable so that makes it ok, not something with as you said "Decades" of scientific research. Nah human intelligence is just not good enough.

    I suppose thats why your god "punished" humans for acquiring knowledge. How DARE we learn and think....

    It must really ruin your day when each new scientific discovery yet proves another bible myth either wrong or explainable doesnt it?
  24. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    Al Gore warned that polar bears were threatened, is it true? Is ANYTHING Gore said true?
    Of course not. Why do you even have to ask? Are you f***ing retarded?
  25. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm
    We little objects on Earth pretty much mean nowt.
    have to look outside the box, whatever we do the Earth will carry on, with or without us. its been around for a fair few hundred million years and will carry on, its just got a infestation of humans bothering it. timescale wise we are flies. just a blink in the universal time frame, sorry god botherers, thats the be and end all
  26. Profile photo of som-tam
    som-tam Male 18-29
    713 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:02 pm
    @guysmiley, if you haven`t watched the movie why make such an ignorant comment? the earth contributes more green house gasses through volcanoes and ocean vents than man does and has done for millions of years.
    @steelgrid, your argument seems to be that because you don`t believe in the bible that global warming must be true ???? wtf? not a credible argument i`m afraid, must try harder.
  27. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:02 pm
    As for Gore saying true things, he was certainly nuts about Social Security being in jeopardy and wanting to protect those funds by putting them in a sort of lock box. Yeah, he had no clue what he was talking about there, either. Whatever. I`m not saying the guy is perfect, but to act like he just goes around telling lies for profit is amazingly ignorant. But, hey, like said, think whatever you want. It`s your right.
  28. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    Steelgrid: The theory of `Global Warming` is not a discovery, it`s a scam.

    Just like the study that said potato chips will kill you with acrylamide, or that eating meat and drinking milk turns children into felons, or the false estimate that obesity kills 400,000 people a year (the actual number is around 25,000), or that EPA estimate that `soot` caused tens of thousand of premature births, or that cell phones cause brain cancer.

    All those junk science claims, and many others, have been debunked. It`s time Global Warming be the next on the debunked list.
  29. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm
    [quote"> The theory of `Global Warming` is not a discovery, it`s a scam[/quote">

    Not so much, the claims are just grossly exagerrated. But so much so that it has become more of a political football rather than a legit issue.

    [quote">This consensus includes former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, who, upon reanalyzing all available data (and using serious Koch Brothers funding to do so, by the way), found that not only is it valid, that the problem may be even worse than though.[/quote">

    That stament is only half-true.
  30. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    davymid: This level of scientific dishonesty, such as Global Warming, should come with an equally harsh punishment. Instead these scammers get rewarded with large grants, tenure and pensions.

    Stick to your oil fields davy, you aren`t a climatologist.At least that`s honest work instead of what Hansen, Gore and his ilk are selling.
  31. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    I`ve been visiting this site less and less in recent months... and now I understand why.

    It`s crap content like this which makes visiting worthless. This may or may not be my last post.

    One thing I don`t understand is why all the rational people here (and I know there are, I`ve seen them) bother to stay. Maybe they`re just bored or something :-).

    So long IAB. I`ve already forgotten you.
  32. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    PROPAGANDA. Nothing more here.
    I am not saying that I do or do not believe the planet is warming, I`m simply pointing out how OBVIOUSLY bias this is.
  33. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    How do you get people to act and vote against their own self-interest? Simple, appeal to the religious! Who else to better accept complete and utter bullpoo that all observable evidence contradicts?

    This video wont convince the thousands of real, paper publishing, peer-reviewed scientists who look at the data day in and day out. It certainly convinces people like 5Cats and CrakrJak who take Lord Christopher Monckton at his word. You know, Lord Christopher Monckton, the guy who publishes Sudoku books.
  34. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    So if a scientist tells you something you don`t want to hear it propaganda? It`s bias? Of course this movie is bias. That`s the premise of the movie. How could it not be bias? Turd is a moron.
  35. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm
    NottaSpy can`t wait for the day he gets to pay an exhale tax. And he`s right. I would rather choke to death on freedom than live one day in the bonds of his utopian bureaucracy!
  36. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm
    NottaSpy: This global warming scam has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with science and it`s manipulation by those with a profit motive to do so.

    Besides, the new religion today is the ecological `green` movement. No amount of hugging trees or carbon credits will save the earth. It`s eco-hysteria and charlatans are making big profits off the morons that subscribe to it.
  37. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:47 pm
    Yeah i haven`t had time to watch it, what`s the whole story in a nutshell?
    Man-made global warming is a hoax.
  38. Profile photo of emmettyville
    emmettyville Female 40-49
    4345 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
    man made global warming is complete bullpoo, desgined to extract money from the populus and make us all slaves to the global elite. (this makes me sound nuts, but there you go, cant help it if it`s true)
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    As expected: the usual folks say yes, the usual folks say no.
    Nice to see some normally quiet folks chiming in though!
    I also suggested a 8 minute video, like a trailer, for this too, it dealt directly with polarbears. I could go find it again...

    The fact is: the facts do NOT support 100% Human-caused Global Warming.

    Fact#2 literally everything Al Gore said in his NOBEL PRIZE WINNING (!?!) film is fiction.

    Deal with it.
  40. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    990 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 9:51 pm
    >Monckton
    >climate adviser to queen.

    Nope. Can`t watch this. If a man lies about his work experience, how can I trust him about polar bears?
  41. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    "By capping productivity and trading economic prosperity for environmental concerns, we run the risk of losing our way of life"

    Forget the science for a minute. This quote (around 6:45) clearly demonstrates the political motivations behind this documentary.
  42. Profile photo of CodeJockey
    CodeJockey Male 40-49
    5606 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    10:42
    "As we scientists predict..."
    XD
  43. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    Crakrjak believes that a photograph of Obama looking at a crescent moon and venus is proof that he`s actually a Muslim.

    And he believes Anthropogenic Global Warming is junk science.

    Credibility issue.
  44. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 10:52 pm
    vv I know Codejockey. Had a laugh at that too. Monckton is a media hack, with a BA in Classics and a diploma in Journalism. He has no scientific training or credentials of any kind. He`s a snake-oil salesman, a hack, and a liar. He`s even claimed to have discovered a cure for AIDS. Seriously, you couldn`t make this stuff up. Moonbattery at it`s very finest, the man makes David Icke seem like the very epitome of grounded reality. But no, Conservatives will put him on a pedestal as the sane voice against climate change.

    In case anyone`s EXTREMELY bored, they can look over the pissing match between me and Ollie on this very dick, some 2+ years ago: http://www.i-am-bored.com/forums.asp?action=read&ct=10&q_id=48822&read_page=
  45. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 10:52 pm
    Ahh yes, the great scientist collusion. It takes somebody that is completely devoid of any critical thinking skills to believe that thousands of scientists and respected journals are united in a grand conspiracy to make more money.

    The reality is that in the arena of science, the money follows the data, not the other way around.

    For the grand conspiracy to be true, all charts and graphs and base data would have to be faked. If that were the case, then every scientist would hold allegations of fraud over the heads of every other scientist. Yet none of these scientists, who are allegedly only in it for the money, have used the easily proven manipulation of data as a way of destroying the careers of their rivals. So they are greedy bastards with grant money, but they represent the pinnacle of restraint when trying to move up the ladder.
  46. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm
    NottaSpy can`t wait for the day he gets to pay an exhale tax. And he`s right. I would rather choke to death on freedom than live one day in the bonds of his utopian bureaucracy!
    I love this quote! What better example of a person who thinks the difference between freedom and the bonds of bureaucracy is the result of how hard he can disbelieve facts. Because reality obviously conforms his world view, right?

    The funniest part is where RytWing says he`d rather "choke to death on freedom than live one day in the bonds of his utopian bureaucracy" in response to my post about people acting against their own self-interest. Who is surprised that a person like this would rather see the world burn than challenge their own beliefs?
  47. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm
    Stick to your oil fields davy, you aren`t a climatologist.
    Ah yes, Crakrjak. The old "stick to what you know, you`re not qualified to have an say on this". You`re right CJ, I`m not a climatologist. I`m only a lowly PhD geoscientist who`s published multiple papers on palaeoenvironments throughout earth`s geological history in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. What do I know of science, or of changes in the earth`s climate?

    If the only people who are qualified to speak on this subject, in your weird little rule-book, are climatologists, then play by your own f*cking rules of the game and listen to them, because they`re all telling you the same thing: global warming is real as it`s always been, it`s happening faster than ever, and it`s happening (partly) because of us.
  48. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm
    Seriously, f*ck the politics, the idea of carbon tax, whatever. Science, observable reality, is apolitical. As I alluded to earlier, if the sky is observably blue, then it`s blue. If some c*ntmuscle politician then tries to impose a tax based on the blueness of the sky, take the fight to that government and fight the tax, and rightly so.

    Don`t make your stance "THE SKY CLEARLY ISN`T BLUE! NO, SHUT UP, I WILL NOT LOOK UP! I REFUSE TO ACCEPT REALITY! I WOULD RATHER CHOKE TO DEATH ON FREEDOM!"

    (Sorry, couldn`t resist poking fun of RytWing`s earlier post on this page, quoted verbatim with that last sentence. He`s been watching too many Charlton Heston NRA rally speeches.)
  49. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:27 pm
    Nottaspy, I was wordcrafting my comments at the same time you were writing yours and posted, only to read your comments ahead of mine. Sentiments shared. Beers sometime?
  50. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:28 pm
    NottaSpy-it`s funny how you discredit the scientists in this video. Do they not conform to your belief system? You`re every bit as much a drone to beliefs as I am.
    The difference between us is that I would die to preserve my belief system (which includes your freedom)and you would enslave both of us to preserve yours. You are a champion of bonds.
    BTW-I`m not blind to facts, I just haven`t seen any yet. When science can say that the giant, burning ball of gas at the center of our solar system has nothing to do with our planet warming or cooling then I`ll bite. Until then I refuse to believe that mans activities are the only factor at play.
  51. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:42 pm
    NottaSpy and davymid clearly don`t understand the argument. It`s not, is global warming taking place. It`s, what is causing it? You seem to think the climate has been the same for 4 billion years and all of a sudden man invents industry and boom the world goes to hell. Your perspective is to narrow. Your history to short. Your minds to closed. You are indoctrinated. You worship your own inteligence but fail to realize your deity is lacking.
  52. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:51 pm
    I`m not blind to facts, I just haven`t seen any yet.
    RytWing writes his own rebuttals. He admits to not seeing any facts and yet he has formed an opinion.

    Let me clear somethings up for you, RytWing. I didn`t try to discredit any scientists, just Lord Monckton, who is no scientist. My beliefs change with new information, while you form beliefs without any facts. Had you seen some facts, you`d know that scientists do attribute some of the warming to the sun, so I guess you are now free to be open minded on the subject.

    I am the "champion of bonds" if climate change is not man made. Since the facts point to man-made climate change, I am just one voice among many that cares about the future of our planet. You can hold on tightly to your opinions in spite of evidence to the contrary, but that leaves you with a credibility problem.
  53. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:52 pm
    NottaSpy-it`s funny how you discredit the scientists in this video.
    Be careful how you use the word "scientists". As I`ve pointed out, there`s a great deal of non-scientific bullc*m in this video, from unqualified quacks. Monckton being the prime example. He`s as much of scientist as I am a Shaolin Monk.

    The difference between us is that I would die to preserve my belief system
    Again, this isn`t about belief systems. Either the sky is blue or it`s not. Science is apolitical, or at it`s best, should be. Whether or not you believe in Evolution doesn`t affect the fact that it happens in the observable world, for example. It`s not a matter of belief. The world is warming, and fast, and it`s apparent that we`re contributing to it, in this cycle.
  54. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 1, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    BTW-I`m not blind to facts, I just haven`t seen any yet. When science can say that the giant, burning ball of gas at the center of our solar system has nothing to do with our planet warming or cooling then I`ll bite. Until then I refuse to believe that mans activities are the only factor at play.
    FOR F*CK SAKE! No credible scientist I have ever heard of claims the sun desn`t affect our climate. It does, clearly. And no f*cking credible scientist I ever met claims that "man`s activities are the only factor at play."

    But we are part of it.
  55. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:01 am
    Unqualified quacks such as Al Gore?
  56. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:02 am
    Davymid
    Which animal did we observe evolving?
  57. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:08 am
    You seem to think the climate has been the same for 4 billion years and all of a sudden man invents industry and boom the world goes to hell. Your perspective is to narrow. Your history to short. Your minds to closed. You are indoctrinated.
    I`m a geologist. I find oil and gas for living. I measure time in millions, if not billions of years. I consider anything that happened in the last 100,000 years to be a "recent event". Tell me again how my perspective of earth history is "to short" .

    I spent 8 years at university to do what I do. I may come across as an arrogant twat, but I hope to think I know what I`m talking about.
  58. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:11 am
    davymid, I have a lot of respect for you. I wish you had posted first. I`m sure you would have made the point better than I did.

    RytWing, davymid and I understand the argument, far better than you it seems. We do not believe climate has been unchanged for 4 billion years, but we do understand evidence. You know nothing of our perspective, history, or minds and yet you haven`t let that stop you from once again forming an opinion without facts. When you say indoctrinated, if you mean that we researched both sides of the argument and continually look for evidence that shows us to be wrong, then yes.

    There is a similarity between your approach to denying anthropomorphic climate change and your belief that you know my mind from a couple of posts.
  59. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:13 am
    Unqualified quacks such as Al Gore?
    YES!
  60. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:17 am
    Davymid
    You`re absolutely right about man playing a part so maybe I misunderstand to argument. The problem I find is that the only solution is cutting carbon emmitions, which is dandy, however, if the sun decides to warm up a little and we feel it, what then? (I have some scarastic suggestions but they would be lost on you.)
  61. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
    NottaSpy-care to explain why Al Gore, with no scientific back ground, is more qualified then Monckton?
  62. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:22 am
    [quote"> Davymid
    Which animal did we observe evolving? [/quote">

    @RytWing: humans, for one, pets for another.

    @Davymid: so in your professional opinion, how much are we to blame?

    I mean, rewind back some half a billion years ago, and a bunch of bacteria totally changed the overall composition of the atmosphere and hence the weather, it`s not a matter of "is it possible" as much as "what`s the footprint so far"?
  63. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:23 am
    Which animal did we observe evolving?
    Do you deny evolution too? Please say yes. Denying that we are changing the climate can almost be forgiven since a scientific consensus is only a decade old and journalism is dead, but to deny evolution requires a single minded dedication to ignorance. It is a little comforting that only those who are incredibly resistant to facts would deny that we are changing the planet.
  64. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:24 am
    NottaSpy
    I know you well enough. You have 800 posts on this sight. This isn`t our first encounter.
    BTW-those things I said about you guys...All of us right wing nut jobs believe that $#!+ about lefties. It`s just a fact of life, true or not.
  65. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:24 am
    Unqualified quacks such as Al Gore?
    Yes, he`s a quack as well. Al Gore is no scientist. Just like Monckton

    Davymid
    Which animal did we observe evolving?
    F*ck, really? You seemed like an intelligent person up to this point. Alright, you`re right. Whatever.

    No-one has seen a tectonic plate move, but you go tell the people of Japan who lost loved ones in the tsunami or the nuclear reactor fallout that plate tectonism is a myth because no-one has observed it first-hand. Record it, I`d love to see the look on their faces.

    If you really don`t believe in Evolution, please take a photo of you taking this year`s `flu shot at the clinic.

    See, this is what I`m talking about. Narrow-minded, scientifically illiterate people who think "if I didn`t see it happen first-hand, then it didn`t happen".

    I`m no climate change alarmist, but by the time we realise we`re f*cked, it`ll be too late. Sad.
  66. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:28 am
    NottaSpy-care to explain why Al Gore, with no scientific back ground, is more qualified then Monckton?
    I can`t explain that since I was AGREEING WITH YOU! Al Gore is an unqualified quack. But lets be clear. The vast majority of climate scientists who say we are changing the planet are perfectly qualified to know exactly what they are talking about. Al Gore doesn`t study climate change so I give him as much credibility as Lord Monckton.
  67. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:29 am
    davymid
    You dodged my question pretty good there. But really, which animal, using the scientific method, has man observed evolving. And no changing the subject. I`m up to your tricks. Tectonic plates. That was a good one.
  68. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:29 am
    Have to go guys, it`s been fun. Thanks all, on both sides of the debate, for keeping it respectful and in "debate" mode rather than "F*CKYOU" mode.
  69. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:31 am
    NottaSpy
    Finally some common ground. Al Gore is a climate change whore. He make six figures for his speeches.
  70. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:31 am
    Rytwing, not dodging you, but really have to go (it`s 5:00 here in Newfoundland, Canada). Enjoyed the debate though, have to pick it up tomorrow.
  71. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:39 am
    Did you ever think that maybe the "credible" scientist is funded by the rich, agenda driven globalist instead of the the noble rich guy funding the hard working pure scientist. The idea is that any one will tell there boss what he wants to hear to keep his or her job. Amirite?
  72. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:40 am
    Ok davymid. Tomorrow we can talk about abortion. :)
  73. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:44 am
    RytWing, don`t you ever get tired of of being wrong about things?

    I am no lefty. I believe in anthropomorphic climate change because the evidence is pretty clear now. I don`t know if God exists because there is not evidence one way or the other. I know the Bible is bullpoo because there is plenty of evidence that shows it to be written by man. Does that make me a leftie? No! I am slightly right of moderate, but the religious whack jobs took over my party and drove it so far to the right that I now look like a lefty. I will live with the "lefty" label as long as that distinguishes me as someone grounded in reality.

    I think Obama is a horrible President. I think Romney would be worse because he gave up his ideals to pander to the crazies. I would have voted for the old Romney, or the old McCain, and I would have voted for John Huntsman.
  74. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:49 am
    Did you ever think that maybe the "credible" scientist is funded by the rich, agenda driven globalist instead of the the noble rich guy funding the hard working pure scientist.
    Yes, I have thought of that. But then my critical thinking kicked in combined with my knowledge of how the scientific community works and it was pretty easy to debunk. The level of collusion that would be necessary is to great to be believable. Like I said, the money follows the data, not the other way around.
  75. Profile photo of bex753
    bex753 Male 40-49
    221 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 1:53 am
    So what is Al Gore exaggerated people do that all the time. What he said was possible but not probable. Climate change is real, humans are causing it, it will be catastrophic for us.
  76. Profile photo of paco664
    paco664 Male 40-49
    159 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 2:50 am
    spit out that mouthful of kool-aid....

  77. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 3:57 am
    It`s amazing to me that anyone, anyone could believe in a worldwide scientific community conspiracy. Truly amazing. That, my friends, is the power of religion and willful ignorance. Not stupidity, mind you, willful ignorance.

    That aside, just to be clear, there are NO scientists who say that global warming is 100% ma-made. Or 90%. Or 80%. Or even, gasp, 70%! Or 60%. Or 50%. Shall I go on? What they DO say is that of the heat increase that we`re seeing, it is 80% to 120% higher than it would be otherwise.

    I would offer links. I have them. But they`d be ignored. Well, fine, here. Or here.
  78. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:28 am
    Am I the only one here who thinks the claims about global have been exaggerated? I`m not saying it isn`t happening, rather it`s not as bad as the alarmists have indicated.
  79. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    509 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:07 am
    I don`t think humans are `causing global warming`, that`s just the avalanche that started at the top of the mountain as a snowball. What I do think is that we gave that original snow ball it`s first push and that does make us responsible.
  80. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    509 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:27 am
    BTW the polar bear population is greater than it was in 1975 because we`ve stopped hunting them. Russia in 1956, Canada in 1968 and Norway in 1973. These skeptics seem to fail to mention that tho.
  81. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36181 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 6:04 am

    If it`s a conspiracy, then why do it? What`s the motive.
    It`s an enourmous undertaking to get vertually all of the scientists world-wide to partake in this plot, the hoodwink governments into believing it. And for what purpose?

    On the other hand, the businesses that will lose money certainly have a reason to deny global waming. Just as tobacco fought regulations and sanctions. {and still does}
  82. Profile photo of greekhop
    greekhop Male 30-39
    116 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 6:45 am
    `Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth`s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation.` Sure it sounds stupid now, with hindsight... I think many current hypes will too. The Earth/Universe does what it does and we come up with theories to explain whats happening. No need to make a religion out of it, and get all hateful towards others, as these theories often end up being wrong.

    But lets say Global Warming tunrs out to be a real problem. Do you put it above our rulers to use it to scare the poo out of us, wrest more control, use it to oppress developing nations, and make more money and all the other things they`re known for? Its not a theory... the carbon trading market has been racked by four scandals so far, and the wealthy nations misuse it to the detriment of the weaker ones. Global warming? Fine! But lets not swallow every piece of rubbish they throw at us.

  83. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 7:30 am
    greekhop, human-affected global warming, as reported by almost the entire scientific community, is just that. Analyzed data, cause and effect (both current and future. It`s presented by scientists as a plea for curbing processes that emit greenhouse gasses. That`s it. Nothing more.

    What governments and political parties and free market industry do with that information is something else entirely. But colluding the two, as if the scientists, as a whole, are out to gain some sort of super awesome pocket protectors or lab coats is just nuts. Be suspicious of government all you want. Question their motives all you want. Fine. But questioning the data and results as a willful conspiracy with the world`s corrupt governments and industry kingpins? That`s just effing nuts.
  84. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 7:53 am
    They simply assert that they are right and the "Alarmists" are wrong, without providing any data or arguments, other than the same old refuted ones like the "climategate" emails..

    Conclusion: waste of time.
  85. Profile photo of christsalaza
    christsalaza Male 18-29
    11 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:03 am
    The validity of this whole thing goes out the window for me because one of their experts "Lord Christopher Monckton" is actually Sasha Baron Cohen. Which tells me they rounded up all the climate deniers they could find as their experts.
  86. Profile photo of christsalaza
    christsalaza Male 18-29
    11 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:03 am
    at the 8:08 mark.
  87. Profile photo of mamba
    mamba Male 18-29
    628 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:24 am
    An incredibly well made film, it`s slick, very to the point, lays things out clearly for the scientifically undereducated. All in all a brilliant crock of bullshyt.

    Every point it makes adds to the elaborate ruse it enforces on the viewer. It builds up from the simplest question `What is science?`, but even at that point it begins to tiptoe around the explanation, setting up to cite later arguments of being unscientific.
    This was made by people who know and understand global warming and don`t want people to believe it.
  88. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:29 am
    You guys sould see Climate wars:

    Episode 1
    Episode 2
    Episode 3

    ya, it`s 3 hours, but the most convincing thing i`ve seen on the issue. Someone really has to post a quick review of the boy who cried global warming before i can dedicate the time to watch it.

    som-tam: Isn`t it possible that the world can compensate for what the world naturally does (volcanoes, etc), but when our pollution is added into the mix, it sends it to the danger zone (too much to handle)?
  89. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:38 am
    That`s actually called:
    Earth: The Climate Wars (A BBC documentary)
    \/ \/
  90. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:41 am
    mamba: thanks for that review..
  91. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:57 am
    It`s times like these I`m grateful that I`m not so fully confident in one ideology that I will refuse to accept any evidence that is not consistent with it.

    Apply that in any way you wish.
  92. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 10:12 am
    Anybody saying "NO scientist denies anthropogenic global warming" is talking out of their ass. I used to work at the meteorology institute with PhD`s who`ve spent decades studying the atmosphere who will deny it. In the same institute there`s people for it of course, they don`t really agree very well on what`s causing global climate change, or if we should be concerned, but they all agree that spending energy and polluting willy nilly is not only dumb but dangerous for all.

    So there, I take their position: "we don`t know", because they were my professors, I know their credentials, I have personally seen their work and data both on the subject and on other areas.

    I see RytWing ignored my previous comment so I`ll reinstate it: we have seen evolution through natural selection, personally, and intimately, in genetic resistance to malaria. We have seen it in algae, in coyotes and in bacteria. Just wanted to say that.
  93. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 10:13 am
    *Meteorology Institute of the University of Guadalajara.
  94. Profile photo of SheaSF
    SheaSF Male 40-49
    98 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 11:52 am
    The calling card of the American Right: "alarmists are Marxists" in the first 5 minutes, along with a quick lesson on the scientific method. Both good signs that there are no real scientists involved in the production of this film. The Right can`t resist a chance to call someone a "commie." But, more telling than that: To break down empiricism like it`s the eighth is usually a good sign the definition is going to challenged or manipulated. The only way someone wouldn`t know what the scientific method is would have to be the result of attending public school in Tennessee, or being home schooled, in which case there is a likelihood this person believes Adam and Eve actually existed and that they coexisted with dinosaurs.
  95. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    One of the "experts" works in cato institute: "Promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations. " Does this sound familiar? Why does the rich white man like to keep climate change out of their responsibility? Why is the right wing so eager to defend the polluters? This reminds me of the tobacco companies in the 70 to 90s when they released research that proved tobacco is not causing cancer... If this document would`ve come from more credible source it may have some truth in it but as it`s origins are so clearly tied to oil business it servers as a good example of propaganda from the "sceptics".. I bet these guys are tied to creationists as well, to anti-abortion, anti-women, pro-life&pro-death penalty.

    Why is this issue dragged to be USA left vs right battle when it is global?
  96. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    And i truly hope that the temperature rises a bit here in the Nordic.. It`s pain in the ass trying to grow any good bud in these altitudes.. Just 4 degrees more would make us very happy :)
  97. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm
    It turns to US national politics in about 1 hour mark. They start to talk against CO2 tax, cap&trade, solyndra, Obama etc... Not a shed of evidence anywhere, lots of "experts" with sketchy backgrounds, no sources given anywhere. Like this is only US issue, unbelievable narcissism... I`m starting to get happy about US eventual demise, you deserve it by allowing this to happen.
  98. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    I see that the myth of volcanoes producing more CO2 than man has raised its head on IAB again. Here are the facts: Depending on the level of volcanic activity, man produces 80 to 270 times more CO2 than volcanoes do in a given year. By any measure, man`s CO2 output dwarfs that of volcanoes.

    For a specific example: In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo released 42 million tons of CO2. Man`s CO2 emissions that year, from fossil fuel burning: approximately 25 BILLION tons. (For those who skipped their math classes, a billion is a thousand million.)

    All of the above information is readily available on the website of the
    USGS, the world`s expert authority on volcanology.
  99. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    Davy: climatologists... they`re all telling you the same thing: global warming is real...

    BULLSH|T!

    That`s the big freaking problem here, you believe there is a `consensus`. There is no `consensus` and I can point to over 1000 scientists that vehemently contest the claims made by those promoting this global warming scam.

    You don`t seem to understand that so called `scientific data` can be manipulated, algorithms altered, formulas fabricated. They can get you any result you want, so long as it`s profitable for them.

    I`m not denying reality, I`m denying augmented massaged and fictitious `reality` made by people with a huge monetary motive.

    Science isn`t as pure and innocent as you believe Davy and you`re the one that naive if you believe it is.
  100. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    @CrakrJak: I`d like to see your list of 1,000 scientists that believe AGW is a hoax. The last time we debated this, the expert you proffered was Dr. Spencer, the "Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show." (That was shortly after you made the gaffe about volcanic CO2 emissions; see my earlier post in this thread for the facts.)
  101. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    Gerry: It`s an enourmous undertaking to get vertually all of the scientists world-wide to partake in this plot...

    No it`s not and it`s a falsehood to say that `vertually all of the scientists world-wide` believe in this global warming non-sense. there is a small group of maybe 30 `climatologists` at the heart of this scam, the rest just follow their lead.

    What you don`t know is that Hansen`s `hockey stick` data came from just 3 trees, that`s all, just 3 trees. That fact wasn`t revealed until long after his chart was established as `fact`.

    Hansen`s algorithms were never published either, he claimed they were being kept secret because he was afraid the deniers would alter his `facts`.

    It wasn`t until hackers got ahold of these charlatans e-mails that the `fixes` and `tricks` where revealed.

    In short, it doesn`t take a whole lot of `scientists` to conspire to defraud the world and redistribute it`s wealth based on fear.
  102. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Squrlz: you asked for it you got it, all 321 pages.

    2010 Senate Climate Report

    Also there is no `gaffe` about the pollution from volcanoes, which is hundreds of times worse than mankind has ever produced. Now it`s you that`s denying science, if you believe otherwise.
  103. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    @CrakrJak: 3 trees?! LOL. We must be getting to you because that is way, way over the top.

    First of all, the famous "hockeystick" chart wasn`t the work of the JPL`s brilliant James Hansen, but Penn State professor and climatologist Michael Mann. Your "3 trees" claim regarding the chart is absurd. Mann`s work, which was affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006, was based on multiple data sets, multiple temperature proxies (including tree rings, lake sediments, stalactite growth, ice cores, and coral growth), multiple independent statistical methods, and has been peer-reviewed by leading climatologists in both the U.S. and abroad.

    Seeing as I pointed this information out to you
    just three months ago, I`m a little surprised that you`re still repeating such erroneous c
  104. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    (cont`d)

    *such erroneous claims.
  105. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    Wow, CJ. That "report" of yours does an excellent job of making my case that Big Oil, not science, is driving the agenda of those who claim manmade global warming is a hoax.

    1. It`s not a "report," it`s a political screed, filled with names of conservative scientists, most of whom have no training in climatology whatsoever. I`m even seeing the names of PhD candidates in unrelated fields in the list: So your side has resorted to getting the signatures of grad students now? Really?

    2. This political document was funded by the "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow," a conservative lobbying group for ExxonMobil, Chevron, DaimlerChrysler, and the Ford Motor Company. They use the dollars of those corporations to wine and dine congressmen and to publish junk "reports" like this in an attempt to confuse the public.

    I rest my case. When you want to talk science--and not simply repeat Big Oil propaganda--let me know.
  106. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm


    CrakrJak`s Partial List of International Conspirators in the Climate Change "Hoax"

    Australia: Australian Academy of Science
    Canada: Council of Canadian Academies
    China: Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Finland: Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
    France: Institut de France
    Germany: Leopoldina
    Italy: Accademia dei Lincei
    Japan: The Japan Academy
    Norway: Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
    Russia: Russian Academy of Sciences
    Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    United Kingdom: Royal Society
    United States: National Academy of Sciences; NASA; American Assn for the Advancement of Science; American Meteorological Society; U.S. Geological Survey; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Navy
    Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences

    Wow. It`s even worse than Rush Limbaugh said. So many evil, corrupt climatologists! Almost makes you not want to leave the basement.

  107. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    CrakrJak
    Thats bang on natural emissions from volcano`s is way more than the worst man can do, and you have underwater volcano`s,its far more in depth than a bloke running a v8
  108. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm
    @Ferdyfred: Somehow it appears you missed the page of data I posted from the USGS, the world`s expert authority on volcanology.

    I`ll summarize the key point for you: "Human activities ... release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes."
  109. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    The overall science regarding equilibrium and global warming is easy to understand. I`ll explain it here because lately, there`s been a lot of complacent talk about how "the Earth always balances itself out."

    The rough equilibrium between greenhouse gases and radiant cooling that Earth has developed is what has allowed for the evolution of enormous biodiversity and for man to flourish. It hasn`t always been this way and it won`t be this way forever, alas. Other planets--Mars and Venus--appear to have had periods of some degree of equilibrium at some point that no longer exists. (It`s no coincidence that NASA`s planetary scientists have contributed enormously to the science.)

    (Cont`d next post)
  110. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    (Cont`d)

    The chief problem we`re seeing now, from the standpoint of balance, is that ENORMOUS reserves of carbon that were locked away beneath the surface of the Earth over the course of TENS OF MILLIONS of years--in the form of fossil fuels--have been released into the atmosphere in 100 years, the geologic BLINK of an eye. Compounding this problem, of course, is the extensive deforestation that has occurred at the same time.

    That`s the problem in a nutshell. Anyone interested in learning more might find the videos of Peter Sinclair worthwhile, such as this one on "The Birth of a Climate Denial Crock."
  111. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    If the argument is that climate change "alarmists" are motivated by monetary interests, why can`t the deniers admit that it`s also a conflict of interest for the scientists they cite to be funded by corporations and political groups that have a large interest in keeping CO2 emissions high?
  112. Profile photo of greekhop
    greekhop Male 30-39
    116 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    Smag Boy (and the rest of you), did you watch this video? I was skeptical before (about the man made part), especially considering many of the the proposed solutions to Global Climate Change (a better term I now beleive), but I must say, this video makes a strong point. If its just a bunch of lies sponsored by somebody with a vested interest, OK, thats how things go in this world sometimes, but using my logic, sense, and knowledge of the world so far Id have to say that the man made climate change due to co2 emmisions argument just doesnt seem likely to me anymore, for the reasons laid out in this video.

    Im not gonna type myself out here trying to convince you otherwise, but you dont need to be fiending for super awesome pocket protectors to make a mistake or be swept along with the prevailing tide of currently accepted orthodoxy. Its quite a common thing, it happens in many fields. No need to conflate a dissenting opinion with some type of evil bond-villain conspiracy claptr
  113. Profile photo of greekhop
    greekhop Male 30-39
    116 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    OK, here goes, last try to build consenus.

    The global debate and the `alarmism` should be about how to reach sustainable development through use of non-fossil fuels and ecologically responsible materials in all facets of life and industry. We should all not be so strongly focused on this one very debatable and obfuscated issue, for our future does not depend on only this one issue, and to waste energy disagreeing about this until the cows come home plays into the hands of those interested in maintaining the status quo.

    Surely most of us can agree to that?
  114. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm
    @greekhop: You`re making two conflicting points in your posts. First, you say you agree with many of the points in the documentary. Second, you say that we should all work on developing a sustainable future through non-fossil fuels. The problem with these two statements is that the people who on the side of the documentary are standing in the way of making the change you claim to want.
  115. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    Squrlz: Finally done with your seven-post rant against `big oil` ? That seems to be your response to all the evidence against global warming.

    Oh those evil greedy corporate types, ewww scary.

    You might be able to float that BS past the uninitiated but science is science and just because you dislike it you demonize those those funding it.

    Well why don`t you swing that same microscope onto the global warming alarmists and realize the connections and collusion within their ranks ?

    Hell no, you can`t do that can you ? You can`t look at both sides and look at them impartially, that might take some honesty and integrity.

    This idiots have made `Carbon` into the modern day boogeyman and it`s all baloney. We need carbon dioxide to live, plants need it, the whole earth needs it. The carbon cycle is essential to life on earth.

    CERN has already proven that solar activity and clouds have more to do with global warming than theorized.....
  116. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    @greekhop: Yes, I watched the video. It`s the latest, slickest attempt by the far-right to muddy the waters and it`s a pastiche of bad science.

    One of its central claims is that Mars is warming which, therefore, supposedly proves Earth`s warming has nothing to do with man. Bunk on several levels: 1st, there is no consensus that Mars *is* warming; and 2nd, Mars`s temperature is affected mainly by its albedo, or reflection coefficient. In the case of Mars, its albedo is determined primarily to the amount of dust swirling around in its atmosphere.

    For more on this topic, I suggest this link.

    I do agree that continuous arguing about established science "plays into the hands of those interested in maintaining the status quo." But I`m certainly not going to cede the field to anti-science propagandists.
  117. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    I love it when I get ignored.
  118. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
    I think what scares you Squrlz is that if global warming was occurring that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can be humanly done about it.

    It`s not anthropogenic, hell it`s not even occurring at all. We`ve had warmer summers before.

    ..and that`s just in the last century, it`s been warmer several other times, in human history, as well. It`s cyclical and not within the realm of human beings control. Even if we all stopped burning coal and gasoline tomorrow, wrecked the economies of the world doing so, and all became vegetarians it wouldn`t make even 2 tenths of a degree (Celsius) difference in temperature.
  119. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
    CrakrJak: I find it odd that you talk about honesty and integrity when I have pointed out your scientific errors patiently for months on here and yet you continue to repeat the same falsehoods.

    Case in point: Your howler that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man`s burning of fossil fuels. I`ve directed you to the website of the U.S. Geological Survey, whose data show your error, and yet you continue to repeat the claim.

    Another case in point: Just today, you make the absurd claim that the "hockeystick" chart was based on data from just "3 trees." Patently absurd. Although I`ve pointed out your error, I have little doubt that a month from now, you`ll be boldly stating that same falsehood on here.

    If honesty and integrity are your goals, perhaps a little self-examination is in order.
  120. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    Squrlz: Why don`t you explain that Mar`s albedo depends on THE SUN. Same as our climate depends on the sun and clouds as well.
  121. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    Squrlz: That was your error in conversion of metrics. Sorry, I proved that you screwed that math up long ago. Guess you bugged out and missed it.
  122. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    Amazing, Crakrjak. Even most of the deniers admit the Earth is warming now (they just don`t believe we`re causing it).

    You linked to a graph on Dr. Roy Spencer`s website. I checked out his website, and even he agrees that the Earth is warming:

    "This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural"

    So he denies the anthropogenic nature of the warming, but he does in fact admit that it is warming.

    "Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved."

    Again, this is from the website you linked to in order to verify your own claim that the Earth is not getting hotter.
  123. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    @Squirlz: Maybe the USGS is not the only authority in the world studying the atmosphere? Here`s the National Institute of Ecology in Mexico saying the atmospheric levels of CO2 haven`t changed much due to human industry.

    It`s in spanish, but that`s what google is for. You can see there in the first graph that plants release 10 times more carbon than industry.

    That`s what I was talking about, there really is no agreement on this stuff. But hey whatever, ignore me. What do I know, I`m just a physicist who has done work in a meteorology institute next to people who have studied this for decades.
  124. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    @CrakrJak: "That was your error in conversion of metrics. Sorry, I proved that you screwed that math up long ago. Guess you bugged out and missed it."

    Well, so much for you being a Christian. Lying through your teeth seems to come easily for you, which isn`t exactly a Christian trait. Just sayin`.

    Here`s a screenshot of me correcting your volcano flub back on May 15 (below).

  125. Profile photo of greekhop
    greekhop Male 30-39
    116 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:10 pm
    @ FoolsPrussia. It seems conflicting if you think that not supporting man made climate change is equal to supporting continued dependance on fossil fules. Those are two seperate issues to me. Im not looking to agree with people 100% on all issues. But where we do agree we need to work together to make a change and not discount others due to some differing views elsewhere. There are many reasons one might want to end fossil fuel dependance besides climate change.

    Lets make this more about ending fossil fuel dependance, not about Global Warming exclusively. I believe thats a stronger card to play.



    @Squrlz4Sale The general public is never gonna be totaly literate on this matter. We are not climate scientists. This debate has been poisened by so much misinformation that it would be wiser to pick another battlefield. Cede this field, for it is not strategically in your advantage to hold to it. I feel opinoins are already set and this debate is not winning anyone
  126. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    @Jendrian: Sorry to have not replied sooner; if you haven`t noticed, I`ve had other fish to fry, so to speak.

    To begin, I have no idea about your claims of being a physicist. "On the internet, you can be anything you want to be," as the dog said in *The New Yorker* cartoon. But I`ll believe you unless I start to see evidence to the contrary.

    1. I know of no reputable body that is denying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. The data is confirmed by multiple independent methods from multiple independent bodies. It isn`t a point of debate.

    2. I disagree with your assertion that there isn`t a consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Scroll down for my earlier partial list of 20 international scientific bodies that affirm AGW.

    3. If you are indeed a scientist, I would think you`d be swayed by the mountain of peer-reviewed AGW research that`s been published. It`s odd to me that you aren`t.
  127. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    @Greekhop: I appreciate the advice, but no, I`m not going to remain silent in the face of falsehoods. If you prefer that path, go for it. It`s not my style.
  128. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm
    @Squirlz: outside of the US, there`s a lot of evidence that points against it.

    I already posted my actual degree and transcript as per requested by, maybe patchgrabber or somebody else, I don`t remember.

    I know in Mexico most meteorology institutes have a "we don`t know" stance, and they do a lot of research on the subject. It would be out of line for me to say that there`s more evidence in other countries, because the only data I have personally studied, is from Mexico.
  129. Profile photo of AywooJablome
    AywooJablome Male 40-49
    35 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    Quit feeding the Flat-Earth Society
  130. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    @Jendrian: "Outside of the US, there`s a lot of evidence that points against it."

    That`s contrary to what I`ve read and experienced: Most of Europe, for example, is exasperated that U.S. policy has been hobbled by AGW-deniers and the fossil fuel lobbyists, and they have a hard time understanding why there appears to be an "AGW debate" over here.

    But, by all means, if you have access to "a lot of evidence that points against it," BRING IT. I`m eager to see it.
  131. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    well I pointed to that study by the national institute of ecology already, let me look for more
  132. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Heads-up: I`m taking a break to get a shower and go out to dinner. I may come back on here before going to bed. In other words: I`m not ignoring anyone--just trying to fit a little real-life into my day. =^.^=
  133. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:49 pm
    see for example what the wiki page in English, largely edited in the US has to say about the scientific consensus, vs what the page in spanish has to say about it.

    The European Academy of Arts and Sciences only says it`s "likely", not much of a definite response. The InterAcademy Council acknowledges, as any scientist would,
  134. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:55 pm
    Even the US`s National Research Council concludes there probably is something we did there, but that it could still be totally natural.

    See what I mean? You can keep going, there`s a lot of stances in that document that say: "yes, definitely", a lot of other scientific groups saying: "very likely", some others saying "somewhat likely" and finally a counted number of those who say "quite unlikely".

    It`s not so cut and dry as to say that the whole of science agrees it`s our fault, we know it`s happening, we don`t quite yet understand why.

    Are you going to argue that the USGS put a measuring device in every single source of CO2 on the planet at the same time for a year and came up with those numbers? I`m not saying they didn`t do their homework well enough, I have a lot of respect fo
  135. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    The InterAcademy Council acknowledges, as any scientist would, that greenhouse emissions are a problem, but doesn`t go as far as to say that we are already a part of it, it only establishes guidelines to not get to that point.
  136. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    @greekhop: I appreciate that you have an interest in reducing fossil-fuel use. My point is just that many of the people who deny anthropogenic global warming do so because they have an interest in keeping fossil-fuel usage high, so these people are effectively the ones standing in the way of making the change you want.
  137. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 7:44 pm
    Squrlz: Your math is wrong, if mankind was producing the amount of CO2 you claimed, we wouldn`t be able to breathe.

    It`s so outrageously incorrect it`s obvious. You`re saying that man produces 638 times the amount of CO2 of a volcanic eruption that blew 14 cubic miles of of itself into the stratosphere.

    Sorry, you`re math is just wrong. You don`t understand the metrics of what the scientists are measuring.
  138. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 7:51 pm
    Squrlz: Also, your baiting of my religion is beneath contempt. Calling me a liar is one thing, trying to call me a bad Christian is another.

    It`s obvious that you`ve lost the debate and are reverting to insults now, Personal insults are the last resort of exhausted minds. May I suggest you just walk away before your vitriol looses any credibility you had left.
  139. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 8:48 pm
    @CrakrJak: I called you a liar because you have a tendency, often demonstrated, to lie. I even offered a screenshot as evidence of your lying. If you can provide a screenshot showing where "you proved that screwed that math up long ago" -- something about metric conversions, you claim -- please do so. I`d be happy to be proven wrong and happy to apologize.

    But, yes, lying as a habit is something most Christians avoid. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with your pastor.

    Lastly, I`ll be happy to step you through the math behind world oil consumption (in barrels of oil per day) and the atomic weight of CO2 if you really need me to.
  140. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Does Man Really Generate 27 Billion Tons of CO2 By Burning Fossil Fuels?

    (for CrakrJak)

    Crude oil has a density of around 0.85g/cm3 and consists (by weight) of approx. 85% carbon.

    One barrel of oil is about 159 liters. Assuming a density of 0.85g/cm3, that barrel contains 135 kg of oil, which contains about 118 kg of carbon.

    Now for the CO2:
    C std atomic weight: 12.0107(+/- 0.00008) g*mol-1
    O std atomic weight: 15.9994(+/- 0.00003) g*mol-1
    Then C = 12 and 2 x O = 2 x 16 = 32 = Total: 44

    Assuming that all the carbon in that barrel of oil will form CO2, that would be 433 kg of CO2. Thus, ignoring side products, 1 barrel of oil produces about 433 kg of CO2.

    (Cont`d next post)
  141. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    (Cont`d)

    World oil consumption is approx. 85 million barrels a day.

    85M * 433 kg = 36.8B kgs, or 36.8M tons/day.

    That equals 13.4B tons of CO2 annually from the burning of oil alone. Add in CO2 from coal and natural gas, and I think you can see that the USGS estimate of 27B tons of CO2 is reasonable.

    I eagerly await your response stating that the periodic table of the elements is a liberal invention and has zero credibility.
  142. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 9:59 pm
    Whoops! Crackrjak just got bitch-slapped upside the head with a heavy hand of scientific facts.

    I eagerly await your response stating that the periodic table of the elements is a liberal invention and has zero credibility.
    Maybe he`ll come back with a counter, hopefully with some hard science as a rebuttal. But from experience, this is usually the bit where he stops commenting and moves on to the next thread.
  143. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 11:14 pm
    Squrlz: I lived next to refineries when I was younger, I know how oil is refined and a barrel of crude oil will no all be turned into CO2. In fact a lot of carbon slag is left over in the refining process, very large piles of it, as a matter of fact. Your figures are bullsh|t because you don`t know dick about how crude is refined into gasoline and other products.

    You also know very little about the combustion of those fuels, each of them having different ratios of CO2 production from their use. Otherwise you wouldn`t have tried to falsely tell everyone here that 100% of all crude oil carbon becomes CO2, with your figures.

    And Davy, you`re supposedly the oil expert. You supporting Squrlz BS numbers shows just how much of an ideologue you are. If you were honest you would`ve corrected Squrlz figures, but no you can`t can you? Your ideology comes first doesn`t it?
  144. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 11:32 pm
    @CrakrJak: What seems to be escaping you, CrakrJak, is that the figure of 27B tons of CO2/year annually generated by burning fossil fuels isn`t MY estimate. It`s the estimate of scientists all over the world, from the USGS to NASA to the UK`s Royal Academy.

    You were scoffing at the number ("outrageously incorrect," you called it), so I did some quick back-of-the-envelope figuring to demonstrate its validity. *Of course* my numbers are an estimate. You didn`t see my words "approximately" and "ignoring side products"?

    Your problem, CrakrJak, is that you are, when it comes right down to it, anti-science. May I quote you from May 14 of this year? You wrote: "The problem is with career scientists, like Michael Mann." Riiiiight: It`s the *scientists* that are the problem.

    Bottom line: You strike me as a person who spends a lot of time ranting against "book learnin`."
  145. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 2, 2012 at 11:50 pm
    As I expected. We asked for hard scientific counter-evidence, and all Crakrjak`s got is "my childhood house was next to a refinery, I got this".

    The man`s a wanker.
  146. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 12:56 am
    @squrlz4Sale
    I realize you are a better mathematician than I am, and I`m sure I`ll get reamed for this one(which is nothing new here at I-A-B) but how does something weighing 118 kg increase its weight to 433 kg by burning it self.
    This is nothing more than a mathematical question.
  147. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 1:06 am
    @RytWing: I`m neither a mathematician nor a scientist, but I`ll be happy to explain this minor point of chemistry. The increase in weight occurs because the carbon atoms are each bonding to two oxygen atoms, which are obtained outside the barrel of oil. Thus the increase in weight.

    Hope that helps.
  148. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 1:16 am
    @S4S
    I am reasonably pleased with your response. Thank you.
    On a side note...I`m disturbed that 2/3rds of that is what I breath.
  149. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 1:23 am
    @RytWing: Happy to help. Actually, most of what we breathe is nitrogen, but that`s another story.

    Hey, by the way: In our discussion about climate change a while back, I don`t think you ever saw my final comments. (I tend to go on a bit, so I understand.) I want to call your attention to them because they contained an apology. If you haven`t read them, and have the time now, here is the link. Start with my post at 8:06 PM.
  150. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 1:52 am
    These discussions are educational and nothing more. Neither side makes any headway and both seem more interested in speaking than listening. I come here because it`s fairly anonymous and I can vent my views of the world with out any real consequences. Having a truly deep conversation is lost in this format.
  151. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 2:03 am
    @RytWing: I agree that the 1000 char limit is a serious obstacle. It tends to enable superficial commentary and preclude serious discussion. If we`re chatting about the latest doings of Kim Kardashian, this format works just fine. But discussing points of science? Not so much.
  152. Profile photo of banjolegs
    banjolegs Male 30-39
    176 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 2:10 am
    Watched bits of the video - ooooh bullpoo. depressingly retarded.
  153. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 3:02 am
    Except: "Global" temperature has gone up before, correct?
    Y/N?
    And humans caused it to go up then too, correct?
    Y/N?
    So 3000 years ago humans made it hot.
    So 300,000 years ago humans made it hot?
    So 30,000,000 HUMANS made it hot?
    Correct?

    The AGW side has NO SCIENCE AT ALL behind it, period! It HAS BEEN hotter on the Earth before! LONG before "humans" even existed!

    So drat THAT!

    It is also hotter on MArs, right now, than the past few decades. It`s-a-fact!
    AGW did that too? NOT!
  154. Profile photo of banjolegs
    banjolegs Male 30-39
    176 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 5:38 am
    @5cats. That is quite possibly one of the most stupid statements I have ever read on this site.
  155. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 7:17 am
    Squrlz: Still don`t have a clue oil is REFINED do you. Yes, I emphasized the word refined for a damn good reason, that`s because most of the carbon in a barrel of crude oil is refined out of it.

    Ta-Da! See how the English language works? Isn`t it remarkable what one single word can reveal. Your bullpoo of all the carbon, in a barrel of crude oil, being turned into CO2 has been exposed for the fraud it is, your math is incredibly incorrect.

    Evidently Davy either didn`t read my whole post, or still can`t bring himself to confirm that I`m correct because he`s bound by his left-wing dogma to not do so.

    Squrlz, I`m neither a mathematician nor a scientist..

    Thank God for that, you`re horrible at it, keep your day job.
  156. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 7:41 am
    RytWing: Not all hydrocarbons are created equal. Squrlz doesn`t understand this simple fact and thus his math is beyond wrong, it`s intentionally deceptive.

    Even when burning coal, considered the worst of the bunch, a lot of soot (carbon) is created, it`s not bonded with oxygen in anyway. The same happens when refining oil, Coke (aka carbon) is created and it`s then sold for further industrial uses, such as making steel.

    Carbon from coal and oil is incredibly useful and essential to how to live. It`s extremely useful and touches our lives in hundreds of ways you probably do not realize. Take away the coal and oil industries and our lives would be impacted in ways you can`t imagine.

    Even if we all started driving electric cars and there were no coal burning power plants, we would still need refined oil to fly our planes and coal would still need to be used to create steel.

    Humans can`t stop producing CO2 any more than we can stop breathing, literall
  157. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 9:00 am
    The AGW side has NO SCIENCE AT ALL behind it, period!

    Slow down cowboy, Carbon Dioxide has a higher heat capacity than Oxygen gas thus it will retain more heat. Temperatures HAVE been rising, AND are projected to rise.


    BUT......

    They have not risen as quickly as the "hotheads" have insisted, nor will they rise as quickly they`ve insisted. The "doomsday" predictions haven`t materialized. I do agree with CrakrJak that not all Hydrocarbons are created equal, but that simply means we must do thermodynamic analyses on these byproducts before we make future models.
  158. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 9:04 am
    As to the "hotheads`" celebration of Richard Muller`s conversion. He`s become a "lukewarmer" (like me) as opposed to a denier or alarmist (hothead). His projections are:

    +1.5 Fahrenheit for landmasses
    +1.1 Fahrenheit for oceans and waters

    ...over the next 50 years. Given that it`s 50 years it`s long enough for mankind to adapt to changing conditions.
  159. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 10:03 am
    @CrakrJak: "Most of the carbon in a barrel of crude oil is refined out of it."

    Really? Gee, CrakrJak, you`ve just revealed that you don`t understand what a hydrocarbon is or how combustion of hydrocarbons, of which carbon dioxide is a major reaction product, works.

    The word "refine" as in "refinery" doesn`t mean they take out the carbon. It means they take out the impurities--sulfur, chiefly--and sort out the hydrocarbons that remain by fractional distillation. You say you grew up next to an oil refinery. Remember the rotten egg smell? Yeah, that would be the sulfur being refined out of the crude.

    My homework assignment for you, Grumpy Anti-Science Man, is for you to fill up your car`s gas tank with this carbon-free gasoline you seem to believe in and see how far you get down the highway. I eagerly await your report.

    Oh, and in the meantime, you can look up the article in Wikipedia on the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  160. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm
    Squrlz: The word "refine" as in "refinery" doesn`t mean they take out the carbon.

    Really? that`s pathetic. I suggest you actually go to an oil refinery and learn how it works.


    Do you see just how much coke (carbon) is at this one facility? Wonder how that happened? It`s called REFINING dumbass. Yes, Sulphur is removed as well, but the chief byproduct of oil refining is coke. There are also heavy oils, greases, asphalt and other hydrocarbons that are not burned out of a barrel of oil.

    I never said gasoline is carbon free, dippoo, It`s called `light fuel` for a reason, it has fewer carbon atoms in the mix, thus it burns cleaner.

    By the way, the rotten egg smell came from the `sour water stripper`, aka the sulfur plant, not the cat-crackers, dufus.

    Just keep digging yourself deeper into stupidity, I`m happy to point it out
  161. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    CrakrJak: Coke is, indeed, a byproduct of refining and it is, indeed, largely carbon. You get a gold star there.

    How is it used? It`s combusted in blast furnaces, with one of the chief reaction products being? You guessed it: CO2, aka carbon dioxide.

    In other words, what little carbon is removed from a barrel of crude in the form of coke eventually joins with oxygen atoms and becomes CO2, just as the carbon that that went into the gasoline does.
  162. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    @CrakrJak: By the way, I suspect that the reason Davymid is no longer interacting with you here is because he came to the conclusion that it was a waste of time.

    (His exact words, if I remember, were "The man`s a wanker.")

    He`s probably right. In another month--heck, maybe even later today--you`ll be loudly braying in some other thread that (1) volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than man; (2) all the data from the hockeystick chart came from just three trees; (3) most of the carbon in a barrel of crude is removed when it`s refined, and (4) the Earth isn`t warming.*

    Take care, buddy.

    (*Every one of these demonstrably false statements--and many more--you`ve made in this thread.)
  163. Profile photo of Wowummwow
    Wowummwow Male 18-29
    265 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm
    @Crakr

    Can you count the carbon atoms in the following?
    (CH3)3CCH2CH(CH3)2

    Also, stating that gasoline burns cleaner is akin to saying a cheeseburger and large fries with a diet coke is a diet.
  164. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 3, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    Let`s get this straight. First Crakrjak says the earth is not warming at all, naturally nor anthropogenically. Next he says that CO2 is vital for the health of the planet. His next point is that gasoline doesn`t even release much CO2. His overall point is that climate change is "junk science".

    In order to be qualified to label something as "junk science", you should probably be able to comprehend basic scientific principles.
  165. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 4, 2012 at 3:51 am
    @Cajun247

    "Given that it`s 50 years it`s long enough for mankind to adapt to changing conditions."

    But will we, though?

    The world is full of people like Crakr and 5Cats, who deny the warming is even happening. How well do you think we are going to adapt to a problem when there are vast numbers who actively hinder any attempt to adapt?
  166. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 4, 2012 at 5:20 am
    Squrlz: The coke in steel making isn`t there to be `combusted`. What the hell man, do I have to explain steel making to you as well, seriously?

    The carbon in coke is used primarily to trap a carbon atom withing the cube shaped lattice of molecules of Fe (iron).

    The whole point of heating steel in a furnace is to enlarge the Fe molecule wide enough that carbon atoms slip through and become trapped within.

    Squrlz I can`t believe that you are this incredibly thick, both of these processes are basic industrial science, yet you claim to know better than me?

    Wowummwow: Do you actually know haw many carbon atoms there are in gasoline ? Do you know that is actually a `light` molecular structure compared with heavy oil, grease or asphalt ? I didn`t think you did.
  167. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 4, 2012 at 5:33 am


    Ok, the first one is a bit of a trick question, gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons and how many atoms of carbon there are in any one sample is variable. But the fact that you don`t know what makes it a `light fuel` is still relevant.

    What makes a light fuel is the number of hydrogen atoms, it`s what makes the fuel burn cleaner.

    FoolsPrussia: I know more than my fair share of scientific facts. Well enough that I also know the deceptions made by those like Squrlz.

    By the way, the reason Davy shut up is because he knows damn well I`m correct and doesn`t want to loose any of his oil science credibility on a public forum such as this. He may ideologically be on Squrlz side, but he can`t deny what I`ve stated about oil refining. If he did, and his colleagues found out about it, it would be extremely embarrassing for him.
  168. Profile photo of Wowummwow
    Wowummwow Male 18-29
    265 posts
    September 4, 2012 at 8:34 am
    Keep on living in your bubble Crakr... I`m out.

    "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
  169. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm
    By the way, the reason Davy shut up is because he knows damn well I`m correct and doesn`t want to loose any of his oil science credibility on a public forum such as this.
    No, the reason I don`t discourse with you is because you`re a f*cking wanker. You`re scientifically illiterate. You espouse to understand science more than more scientifically qualified people than you, and they are all wrong and you are right. It wasn`t so long ago that you were schooling me on oil exploration, while using terms like "ultramafic caprocks" which were lifted straight off wikipedia on an article on waterfalls, which I pointed out was fundamentally F*cking wrong.
  170. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    But what do I know? I only have a PhD in the subject. Hey, you used to live next to a refinery. You go, sister. You`re an expert in hydrocarbons. I grew up next to a mushroom farm. Therefore, I am an expert mycologist.

    I have no fear of "loosing" (sic) credibility over the internet. I assure you, and let it not be misunderstood: I don`t talk to you because you`re a wanker. A confident, misinformed, scientifically illiterate wanker, but a wanker nonetheless.

    I want so hard to like you CJ. I`ve tried, in the past. But I can`t do it anymore. You`re just a wanker.

    Tell us again how there`s no such thing as Evolution. That`s always a riot.
  171. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 5, 2012 at 1:35 am
    davy: Still avoiding the issue that you know I`m right about the facts of oil refining. Ya, you can`t bring yourself to confirm that Squrlz is wrong can you?

    You lost the argument on shale oil fracking and stated that it was being done only a few hundred feet below the earth, endangering the aquifer. When I pointed out the fact that it was in fact being done thousands of feet below the aquifer, below `caprock`, you attacked me personally.

    You do so once again, because you damn well know I`m right and it infuriates you. You won`t argue the relevant facts. You bring up other (off topic) subjects, insult me, and toss up your PHD like you believe it makes you the god of all science and are infallible.

    One of these days you`re going to have a hell of a pride fall davy, it`s going to hit you hard, very hard. You will, someday, come to realize you aren`t as perfect as you think you are and reality will smack you down. God help you when it does.
  172. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    @CrakrJak: Crakr! CrakrJak! Where are you, you wild man? Omma calling you out!

    ~throws a fusillade of acorns at the head of the Grumpy Anti-Science Man~
  173. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 5, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    One of these days you`re going to have a hell of a pride fall davy, it`s going to hit you hard, very hard.
    Oh for f*ck sake. I`m humble Crackrjak. You`re the one full of pride. You`ll proudly take on an oil exploration specialist, and tell him you know more than him about oil exploration. You`ll happily take on PhD climatologsts, and tell them you know more than them about climatology. You`ll happily take on every meaningful expert on biological science, and tell them that that you know more than they do about basic biology, and that evolution is a lie.
  174. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 5, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    That`s the difference between you and I CJ. I`m humble. I`m not going to take on an expert in particle physics at CERN, because he/she knows a lot more about the subject than I do. Nor am I going to take on my mechanic, when he diagnoses something wrong with my car. I`ll happily concede, he knows more than I do about the working of engines. Nor would I take on a medical professional who gave me sage advice based on his/her diagnosis. I``m quite willing to concede that any of these learned people, in their field, know more about the subject than I do.

    But you can`t do that. You can`t help yourself. You`re so full of pride in being right all the f*cking time, on subjects you know nothing about. THAT is what makes you a wanker.
  175. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 5, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    You do so once again, because you damn well know I`m right and it infuriates you.
    No, what infuriates me is the fact that I damn well know you`re so f*cking wrong on just about every matter of science that it`s ludicrous, yet you`re so confident that you`re right.

    p.s. On the Marcellus shale, it exists at various depths between outcrop and thousands of metres. And it`s being fracked in various places at all kinds of depths. I`m delivering a traing course in Fracking on tuesday, to some 20 oil company professional geologists from Houston to Dubai to Korea.

    You`re very welcome to attend my course. You can be the guy that shouts from the back of the room, "THAT TEACHER GUY WITH THE PHD DOESN`T KNOW WHAT HE`S TALKING ABOUT, DON`T LISTEN TO HIM! I GREW UP NEXT TO A REFINERY, FOR F*CK SAKE!"

    Normally I wouldn`t, but I think I can squeeze it in one more time when it comes to you: You`re a wanker.
  176. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm
    CrakrJak: I have no idea if you`re still reading this. But I checked back in tonight, read your post with your latest error, and thought I`d clear up a few things for you.

    You`re absolutely correct that carbon atoms derived from coke are trapped within the latticework of iron in the manufacture of steel. But here`s the problem, Grumpy Anti-Science Man: The coke that is used in the manufacture of steel is derived from *coal*, not petroleum. Most of the coke that is a byproduct from an oil refinery (aka petroleum coke) is combusted in blast furnaces for the smelting of iron, copper, and other metals.

    All that petroleum coke in your photo? The vast majority of its atoms joined with oxygen and flew out of smokestacks as carbon dioxide, just as I told you. Of course, some small percentage of it was probably used for battery manufacturing.

    But I`m sure you already knew that.

Leave a Reply