# The Global Warming Fraud



## ChemEngineer (Nov 18, 2019)

*A detailed scholarly article exposing the fraud of global warming/climate change:*

*http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf*


*Abstract of a review of 11,000 climate change papers’ abstracts, by John Cook, University of Queensland*

*“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming…”


*


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 18, 2019)

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 18, 2019)

This is illustrative of the idiocy of this particular debate.

While "consensus" is not "science," it might be instructive to note that very few climate scientists completely discount the human contribution to warming, and very few climate scientists believe that human contribution is the primary driver of warming.  Warming is happening and human activity contributes to it.  Done.

With that question out of the way, the question becomes, "What can be done to diminish or eliminate the human contribution?"  Unfortunately, much of human CO2 generation is not going to change, for a number of reasons.  The third world and developing world NEED the energy generated by burning fossil fuels in order to come into the 20th century, so to speak.  They are cooking their food on dung fires, heating their homes with twigs, and traveling with their feet.  Home electricity is a pipedream. Clean water is unavailable.  Do you expect these people (more than half the earth's population) to simply LIVE WITH IT???

Even in the developed world, significant reduction of CO2 is not "around the corner."  Solar, wind, tidal, and new hydro are a small fraction of the overall need.  With the utterly-stupid rejection of nuclear power, coal and natural gas will be doing the lion's share of power generation and transportation propulsion for at least another 50 years.

A sane program to deal with AGW would be simply to work to incrementally reduce CO2 generation, and look to devise engineering solutions to the problems that will occur due to warming.  Start with Venice.

The LAST thing we should do is turn over world government to Leftists, which is what the "goal" is now.


----------



## westwall (Nov 18, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.








The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible.   The climatology studies aren't. 

That makes them pseudo science.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 18, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.
> ...



 And how many times do they have to be reproduced?


----------



## westwall (Nov 18, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






Always.  That's what makes it science and not fraud.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 19, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Comprehension problems again? I said, how many times does a study need to be reproduced, not id all studies need to be reproduced.


----------



## westwall (Nov 19, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







It needs to be reproducible,  always.  ANYBODY should be able to replicate the results of a study 100% of the time.

One of the leading lights of climatology stated that his experiments probably couldn't be reproduced,  but that was okay, they didn't need to be reproducible.

A fundamental violation of the scientific method

And, my comprehension is fine. It's not my fault you are a scientific illiterate.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 19, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.



Research has shown that peer reviewed papers are as fraught with errors and bias as non-peer reviewed papers.  Your condescending missive is inappropriate and anti-science.

Now for more science exposing the Climate Change Fraud.
This is the fraudulent Keeling Curve.





It is fraudulent because it is intentionally misleading, which science should never be.  How is it misleading, while providing accurate data?

1.  It has a non-zero base.  This intentionally skews the graph dramatically upwards, so readers are frightened!  Oooo, do something, NOW.
2.  It does not include water vapor, which is THE dominant greenhouse gas, at ~15,000 ppmv.
3.  It includes all atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the 96% which is produced naturally, over which humans have little or no control.

Adjusting for just one of these three factors, one gets a graph flat as a pool table.




And please, don't give me the Talking Point about water vapor being *different* than carbon dioxide.  Water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide as shown in their infrared spectra:


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 19, 2019)




----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 19, 2019)

westwall said:


> .
> 
> One of the leading lights of climatology stated that his experiments probably couldn't be reproduced,  but that was okay, they didn't need to be reproducible.
> 
> ...



Westwall, your wisdom exceeds that of the AlGorians as far as light exceedeth darkness.

Paradigms die hard, particularly when billions of research dollars are in the government trough.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 12, 2019)

*If climate change were so "real" and "scientific," why have all their predictions been wrong?*
*Why do they lie all the time?*
*Why are they so hyperemotional and psychotic?*

*Just a FEW of the Climate FAILS on snow*
Caroline Snyder
iceagenow.com

FAIL! “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
— Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

FAIL! “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
— Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

FAIL! More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
— Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

FAIL! “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
— Spiegel, 1 April 2000

FAIL! Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
— Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

FAIL! Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
— Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

FAIL! “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.
— Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

FAIL! Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
— David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, 20 March 2000

FAIL! The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
— Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

FAIL! The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
— IPCC Climate Change, 2007

FAIL! We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
— Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

FAIL! Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
— Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

FAIL! January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a _NY Times_ interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
— Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund


----------



## Frannie (Dec 13, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


The fact is that climate began changing on planet Earth before there was a climate to change.  How because the formation of the climate was change.  There is no evidence that humans are adding to climate change


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 14, 2019)

*Love ya, Frannie.*


----------



## Frannie (Dec 14, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Love ya, Frannie.*


Well you make one...…………………...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 14, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > *Love ya, Frannie.*
> ...



At's all you need, babe!  One is just fine.  Know what I mean?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> While "consensus" is not "science," it might be instructive to note that very few climate scientists completely discount the human contribution to warming, and very few climate scientists believe that human contribution is the primary driver of warming.


Steaming pile of nonsense.

In what the rest of us call "reality", exactly zero published climate research, for over 25 years, concludes that mankind's actions are not the primary driver of the rapid warming.

Zero.

And the conclusion of the IPCC is that mankind's actions are almost certainly solely responsible for the rapid warming.

Stick to the politics discussions, where you can pass off your lies as "opinions". That wont work in the Science section.


----------



## Frannie (Dec 14, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > While "consensus" is not "science," it might be instructive to note that very few climate scientists completely discount the human contribution to warming, and very few climate scientists believe that human contribution is the primary driver of warming.
> ...


There is zero evidence that humans are the cause of any of Earths 5 billion years of constant climate change.

Pollution yes, but pollution is not the climate it's pollution like your mind


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 21, 2019)

We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ... There is zero evidence that humans are the cause of any of Earths 5 billion years of constant climate change.
> 
> Pollution yes, but pollution is not the climate it's pollution like your mind



What an irreal bullshit. They way how you say this makes clear, that you know on your own it is a lie, what you say here. So why do you do this? Is to do suicide more fun?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 23, 2019)

The Global Warming Fraud


----------



## james bond (Dec 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The only fraud here is you...



Even with AGW, you believe the lies and not believe the truth.  What the fudge ?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.


Huh ?


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.
> ...



The USA - a nation with a big reputation worldwide  - gives a very bad example for politics in times of global warming, which is without any doubt made from the human race and a consequence of a wrong form of industrialisation. And this bad example of the USA has very real and serios negative consequences worldwide.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


The worst polluters are China and India and what the fuck is the "right" form of industrialization.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



To be a planet murderer is more easy when others are planet murderers too, isn't it? The USA uses much to much ressources - is wasting much to much energy - suffers a lack of respect for all and every life and the quality of life of all existing entities. It is not only doing nothing to help our planet  - it is doing less than nothing and motivates other nation to help the USA to waste the world. Your nation is a shame for all mankind. That's not a nice Christmas message in the 20th year of the third millennium  - but it is necessary to be said.

Nevertheless Merry Christmas.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > The worst polluters are China and India and what the **** is the "right" form of industrialization.
> ...



I'm a German on the way to become angry, racist. And your nation will have to pay attention to the unalienable rights of all and every life ... or not. And the "or not" will make you only to a victim of the delusion your self created hell will be a paradise.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





zaangalewa said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Why don't you loons ever practice what you preach. Give all of your modern conveniences and go live the simple life you want to force on others. It would certainly fix the population problem. I thinking the majority of people like yourself would be dead in a month or so. 

By the way the majority of modern conveniences where invented in the US.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Yeah because Germany has a great track record in that area ? Look at you countries history you have zero right to talk about the actions of others.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



I don't preach. Indeed I hate preachings - except birds or other animals are listening. I love it much more to speak with animals.



> Give all of your modern conveniences and go live the simple life



You don't have any clue what you speak about, isn't it? Germany has 3% of the size of the USA and 25% of the population of the USA. We need a very modern technology - partially a still not existing technology - to avoid a senseless waste of ressources and energy. But a more simple lifestyle would be an additional win. 



> you want to force on others.



To do what? To leave the way to think of the 18th century? To force someone to learn and to be creative is impossible.



> It would certainly fix the population problem. I thinking the majority of people like yourself would be dead in a month or so.



What about to leave your brain and to start to live in the real world outside?



> By the way the majority of modern conveniences where invented in the US.



From migrants.


----------



## bluzman61 (Dec 25, 2019)

Frannie said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yep.  The climate change wackos need to realize one simple thing, Climate Change = Weather.  That's ALL you need to know.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

bluzman61 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Good grief. How unbelievable stupid.


----------



## bluzman61 (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Climate Change = Weather.  It really IS as simple as that.  You're welcome.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

bluzman61 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...



Not only your comment was stupid. But I don't start to discuss another 50 years now.

The USA produces 15.7 tons CO2 per year and inhabitant. That's much to much. Reduce it. Start now. Otherwise exists the danger of an automatized positive feedback effect from natural sources too. (=A kind of CO2-explosion).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Why don't you loons ever practice what you preach. Give all of your modern conveniences and go live the simple life you want to force on others.


This is definitely the most idiotic denier talking point.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...








Fuck you.  CO2 isn't a pollutant.  It is the fundamental building block of life on this planet.

Only complete scientific illiterates think CO2 is a problem.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you loons ever practice what you preach. Give all of your modern conveniences and go live the simple life you want to force on others.
> ...







And yet it is so accurate you don't have a comeback.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2019)

westwall said:


> Only complete scientific illiterates think CO2 is a problem.


I will pass your thoughts to the 10s of 1000s of scientists who contributed to IPCC. I am sure they will have a hearty laugh at your expense.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


But China produces more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...


And...?


----------



## 22lcidw (Dec 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Only complete scientific illiterates think CO2 is a problem.
> ...


Most of the younger scientists find it difficult to find work without being coerced into this scam. You will find older scientists and those with tenure to be more questionable. To much money has been stolen from the peasant. Thousands of years of this. Then war after war after war.  To many lies and to many people enriched while others suffer. Lets get the countries to build manufacturing plants that do not pollute like they do now and pay their slave employees more. That in turn may let us buy a TV among thousands of items for three times more or even more then that. But you won't mind.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


I don't see any of you people bitching about China's output of CO2 only the US's. Global warming, climate change whatever the fuck you want to call it isn't about the planet its about wealth redistribution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> I don't see any of you people bitching about China's output of CO2 only the US's.


Then you are deaf and blind. Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.



The whole exercise was faulty.. THeir methodology sucked.. It was not a "global warming" science journal that published that shit... 

They counted ALL PAPERS that they reviewed and "expressed no global opinion" on GW theory as favorable to their consensus.. And they didn't even REQUIRE "opinion".. Just an abstract section referring to the OPINION OF OTHERS --- was counted as consensus... 

Furthermore -- and even WORSE -- the question they were asking was to the effect of --- 

"Is the planet planet warming and do anthropomorphic emissions of CO2 contribute to that warming"??? 

That's a stupid question, because even I would have to say yes... 

You can not HAVE A CONSENSUS on the many theories and postulations by asking ONLY ONE FUCKING QUESTION.. You need to have asked about 100 questions to get a consensus about the PREDICTED FUTURE of CC... 

And the ONLY REAL comprehensive surveys of climates scientists --- BY climate scientists are the series of lengthy detailed polls by Bray and von Storch that I've excerpted on USMB dozens of times.  There's no consensus on EVERYTHING... 

BullDog --- Is the world ENDING in 12 and all the little kiddies gonna die?? 

What's the projected temperature anomaly in 2100??  

No consensus by asking ONE QUESTION on this complex, multi-disciplinary issue....


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

westwall said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...



You like to have a sexual intercourse with me?



> CO2 isn't a pollutant.  It is the fundamental building block of life on this planet.



Without greenhouse gas effect we would be dead. And now travel to the Venus and take a look what the greenhouse effect is doing there. And afterwards you will let it be to speak with me like a brainwashed idiot, who likes not to listen what serios independent scientists all over the world say about the climate change.



> Only complete scientific illiterates think CO2 is a problem.



Learn manners before you try to speak the next time with me. I'm tired meanwhile about the rude US-American culture. Ask mathematicians of insurances what they decide in case of an immense risk and don't try to tell all people in the world it's more important to win a blue ribbon, instead to take care for the passengers of the planet Titanic. Whom do you like to call after the desastrous end of your irreal dreams? God? Call him now, listen, change your mind.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.
> ...



You did a bang up job there on how to make graphs to panic folks.. You did real well -- until you produced a graph at the end to COUNTER all that and pulled the same awful trick by zero base scaling it but MAGNIFYING the Y axis... 

It makes a point, but it's similarly fraudulent.. Research graph scaling and labeling should be confined to a few standard deviations around the mean value of your data and there's no requirement to be "zero-based".. 

But kudos for the tutorial on Mauna Loa..


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



Little child, China is doing a lot to reduce the problem. But the USA forces everyone in the world to waste more money in military structures. Enemies as well as friends. And calculated per inhabitant wastes the USA much more energy than anyone else.



> Global warming, climate change whatever the fuck



¿the fuck?



> you want to call it isn't about the planet its about wealth redistribution.



The wealth redestribution of superrich drug- and weapon dealers into the own oligarchic or pharaonic purses, who pay the propaganda machine, which brainwashes you?  The technics of the 19th and 20th century has to be replaced with a new modern technology for the 21st and 22nd century. Why do you think this produces not wealth too? Because the USA is a nation of the past and not a nation of the future? God is always new too. Why do you all live continously in fear of change? Is this "American"? Back to the cold war or to a new world war, because it's nice to feel mighty, is not any solution.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> View attachment 290634



The other point that is left out here is what the real POWER of CO2 to warm the atmosphere really is..

Even the respected skeptics on GW agree that a DOUBLING of CO2 concentration by basic Physics and Chemistry results in an equilibrium surface temp change of about 1.1DegC... This is the power of CO2 WITHOUT all the hyperbolic, CATATASTROPHIC theories of GW tossed into the mix...

Those CAGW theories postulate "accelerated or runaway" GW.. They postulate the climate system is dominated by "positive feedbacks".. They even postulate that there is a "trigger point" in temp at which man is doomed and can NOTHING to save the planet...

THAT shit is all I disagree on... I ACCEPT that CO2 has some basic atmo warming potential -- it IS happening -- but the future is NOTHING LIKE the projections and models that include these CATASTROPHIC effects that some imagine...

Those adjunct theories make CO2 into a SUPERPOWER atmospheric determining force.. And it is not...

So the pre-industrial age CO2 concentration was about 300ppm... To DOUBLE THAT -- we'd have to achieve 600ppm..  We're at 400... Not EVEN doubled in the past 200 years.. And the OBSERVED surface temp change is just a TAD above that "natural warming power"...

So if we HIT 600ppm by 2070 or so, the NEXT 1.1DegC rise would take an additional increase of 600ppm of CO2, not just 300ppm.. And wouldn't likely ever see that til WELL INTO the 22nd century....

This is because as concentration increases, the power of CO2 goes DOWN exponentially.. No one marching in the streets or the majority of Congress or USMB "warmers" understand this.....


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You need a new translator. The one you have is shit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In what the rest of us call "reality", exactly zero published climate research, for over 25 years, concludes that mankind's actions are not the primary driver of the rapid warming.
> 
> Zero.



That's the problem with the new left... FIRST they start demanding that accused people prove their innocence until this ploy is used routinely in Congress or the media or even in universities.. THEN they warp the scientific processes to DEMAND that skeptics of any theory PROVE a negative... 

Aint the way it works in LAW or SCIENCE... Your "cancel culture" approach is DOA....


----------



## bluzman61 (Dec 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > In what the rest of us call "reality", exactly zero published climate research, for over 25 years, concludes that mankind's actions are not the primary driver of the rapid warming.
> ...


ANOTHER fine, intelligent post, thank you!  Why aren't the other mods on here able to think clearly and with intellect like you do?  You more than make up for them and I wish you would post more often.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



What is the temperature gonna be in 2100??  2 degC hotter? Or 6degC hotter? Makes a diff. And all your emotional whining won't change the predictions or the reality of the science.. 

I'm sure you're convinced the world is ending.. You're basing that on a 0.5degC change in the global mean temp over your lifetime (estimating 40 yrs old)... But you live on a planet where daily temps year to year can vary by + and - 4 to 10 DegC..

You think that 0.5DegC mean change in your lifetime matters a LOT???


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



You probably DONT KNOW that US has succeeded more than the Kyoto pact countries on reducing CO2 emissions. Our emission now is back to 1990's levels... No other country has made that type of cutback... 

And we DID IT with natural gas replacing coal for the most part. Because we HAVE a lot of natural gas..

Spend less time WHINING and more time studying....


----------



## bluzman61 (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Please remember this - Climate Change = Weather.  Once you commit this to memory, you will be just fine.  You're quite welcome.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...



It will be to high, and much higher if the USA continues to follow your wrong way - or do you follow the wrong way of the USA?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



That's not enough information to panic me.. If the GW has caused a mere 0.6degC in your LIFETIME, would a further 0.6degC destroy the planet? 

Nobody wants to hear the panicking from folks who don't KNOW how much hotter it's expected to be in 2100....


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...







Without CO2 in the atmosphere we would all be dead.  That is correct.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...








You tell me to treat you with respect and then insult everyone else.  Typical progressive loon with zero scientific knowledge.

Go to school and learn something.   Right now you're just an ignorant fool.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

bluzman61 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I do not discuss with you now about the difference between climate and weather. I guess you like to say weather is chaos (non-linear matematics with many not exactly measurable variables) so climate is chaos too and in long term not calculable. But this idea is wrong. Physical phenomenons follow different natural laws depending on the size of this phenomenons (the whole is different from the parts). Who likes to describe an ocean needs not to know a lot about the chaos of water drops.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

westwall said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Now you disqualified yourselve.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

westwall said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



You are using here a propaganda strategy of the Commies: _"If someone says the truth then try ot destroy his reputation with whatever form of nonsense"._ The next step in this communistic propaganda strategy is to eliminate the critics physically.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...







No, you have made a declaration that has no basis in fact.  You are quoting studies that are based entirely on computer models.  

Scientific illiterates,  such as yourself, don't understand that computer models are fiction.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2019)

westwall said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I quoted nothing here. 



> Scientific illiterates,  such as yourself, don't understand that computer models are fiction.



Okay  - you do not like ot reduce the CO2 emissions of the USA. Your decision? Everyone's else decision too?


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...








You are so ridiculously ignorant of the facts that I can't take you seriously.   The US has ALREADY reduced emissions beyond what we had agreed to.  Time for the rest of the world to catch up to what we have already done.


----------



## Mindful (Dec 26, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



He does it on purpose.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



What do I do on purpose?


----------



## Mindful (Dec 26, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



I just told you: 'it'.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 27, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



Already told you.. The US HAS reduced CO2 emissions back to early 1990s levels.. THat's more than most any other country.. And that was done WITHOUT massive govt planning and scheming and intervention or cost to consumers.. Wake the fuck up....


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 27, 2019)

Mod Message.. 

*Had to delete the last 20 posts in this thread. It was an off-topic 5 way flame fest without a hint of the topic, title or OP... All 5 are now thread banned.. Don't come into Zone2 science forum and topics to assault each other... *


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 27, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Already told you.. The US HAS reduced CO2 emissions back to early 1990s levels.. THat's more than most any other country.. And that was done WITHOUT massive govt planning and scheming and intervention or cost to consumers.. Wake the fuck up....



Stop making so much sense before you scare the Climate Fear Mongers into actually shutting the fuck up


----------



## daveman (Dec 27, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


What is the ideal temperature of the planet?


----------



## daveman (Dec 27, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Nope.  That's you Climate Cultists.

Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'

‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Already told you.. The US HAS reduced CO2 emissions back to early 1990s levels.. THat's more than most any other country.. And that was done WITHOUT massive govt planning and scheming and intervention or cost to consumers.. Wake the fuck up....
> ...


Except it won't, because the boast is a moronic boast meant for uninformed morons and only partially true. Our emissions are still very high, just as they were in the 1990s. And the tiny decrease is due , chiefly, to moving away from coal and to warmer winters. So, less coal use (oh look, an environmentalist goal, and in no small part due to use of renewables, which actually are subsidized, note the lie in his post) and warmer winters (oh look, global warming).


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...






What a retarded post.  The winters aren't warmer you buffoon.  The switch from coal to natural gas is what has done it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2019)

westwall said:


> The winters aren't warmer


Wrong, as usual.
Warming winters across the United States | NOAA Climate.gov

Westwall, everyone knows you have no idea what you are talking about and just react to whatever flashes across your screen. Everyone. 

"The switch"

Absolutely, that is a factor. Also, renewables. These are mathematical facts. Cry all day, and they will still be facts at ni night time.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Dec 29, 2019)




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2019)

eagle1462010 said:


>


Name one lie, professor.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The winters aren't warmer
> ...


You're claiming to speak for an awful lot of people.  You don't.  Just thought you should know.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes I do. Thanks for the outburst.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...







The only outburst is yours, dude.  Hyperbole and lies are all you have.  Thanks for making that crystal clear.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Actually, I obliterated your madeup horseshit with 1.7 seconds of effort and some factual information. That's why you are having your little fit, remember? Your memory is not good.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...







No, you didn't you boob.  You haven't obliterated anything save your credibility.   Everyone with a brain recognizes the fraud now.  Only scientific illiterates,  and the mentally retarded still believe that crap.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2019)

westwall said:


> No, you didn't


Of course, I did. See, you madeup some utter horseshit, because you don't know what you are talking about and had to say something to fulfill your kneejerk reaction.

But, in your rabid, crybaby furor, it never crossed that chasm between your ears that people have analyzed why our emissions have decreased, and that even a trained monkey can find this information.

So, I corrected your silly little lie. And now you're all gwumpy about it.

Westwall, this same shit happens to you literally every time you fuck with me. Learn something. Stop making shit up!


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, you didn't
> ...








Sure thing sport.  Your ass has been handed to you so many times all you have left is claiming victory and pounding your chest like a gorilla.

It's real easy to tell it's a fraud.....none of the draconian measures are in place, and won't ever be.

You clowns will continue to lie, and the normal folk will just avoid you on the streets like the mentally deranged people you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



*Otherwise exists the danger of an automatized positive feedback effect from natural sources too.*

Exactly!
The last time CO2 hit 500 ppm, everything died.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Not a moronic boast.. Just the facts.. And going BACK 30 years to past emissions levels would be lauded by ANY honest environmentalist.. You're just not one of those...

And it was NOT RENEWABLES that replaced those coal plants. It was natural gas.. And it was done against HEAVY OPPOSITION by the Obama Admin and various states.. This was accomplished by market forces IN SPITE of govt and the ignorance of the impending doomers..

Winters in the US are not THAT warmer.. IN FACT, as a whole nation, they are only about 0.4DegC warmer than when you were peeing in diapers. When the temp swings as much as +/-8 to 12 degF diff on any given day compared to avg -- the nationwide heating use is BARELY gonna tingle from a 0.8DegF GW mean departure over your entire life span..


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 29, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.
> ...



It's the party line that is so important.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 29, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BasicHumanUnit said:
> ...



I strongly suggest you refrain from using data.

I don't want to read about leftists lemmings whose heads exploded a few days after Christmas.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you loons ever practice what you preach. Give all of your modern conveniences and go live the simple life you want to force on others.
> ...



Do you get paid to deflect ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 29, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



WHAT ????


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 29, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



Look stupid.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Correct....not one.

More like 5,000.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The winters aren't warmer
> ...



Climate.gov is a recently created propaganda site for the intellectually weak... Note they don't give a US anomaly for that span of time for their scary charts.. Also note the LARGEST departure on those charts is about 1.1DegC.. 

And the vast majority of THAT is in those states that are literally frozen tundra in Jan/Feb... NO SCARY changes worth noting in the OTHER 50% of the country where winter is more variable naturally... 

The bottom chart (% of landmass in bottom 10% of "extreme cold) is a cherry pick.. Winter VARIANCE for 50% of the US landmass is tiny compared to the northern tier and the Rockies.  The coasts and Gulf states have a winters moderated by the proximity to ocean.. So the extreme cold range is VERY narrow and not likely to experience any real effects from a 1DegC mean change..   

ALL of that is subject to scientific scrutiny.. Including the range of dates chosen.. Since the US REPORTING networks were not very filled out until about 1930s. And it's those NORTHERN TIER STATES and low pop density states that would have had spotty reporting from 1885 to 1930s... 

Just that one factor alone could contribute more uncertainty to the analysis than the 1DegC mean change CONUS wide....


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The winters aren't warmer
> ...



If you have ONE number or piece of evidence that it was NOT nat gas development, but wind and solar that led the decrease in emissions back to 1990s levels -- we'd sure be excited to see that... And I do not need the usual cheery numbers about how much wind and solar was BOUGHT.. I need the percentage of wind and solar that covered the demise of 24/7/365 coal power sources.  NATIONWIDE....


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...



You'd think that thawing out from 4 consecutive glacial periods and releasing all those sequestrated CO2/Methane sources would have EASILY "runaway and destroyed the planet"... With a mile of ice covering the N. Hemi and then exposing all that sequestered carbon -- we're not just LUCKY that man even exists.. It means our planet is not defective with a lot of those imagined "positive feedbacks" from natural CO2 sources...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana needs more science time and less politics and demonstrating time.. You like FACTS AND NUMBERS??  Get them.. Use them.. Don't make up shit... 

From 2012... 

*Natural Gas Fuels the Recent Drop in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States fell to their lowest level in 17 years in 2012, according to a new report from the Environmental Protection Agency. Additional data from the U.S. government show why: the trend is largely the result of a rapid drop in coal-fired electricity, and a corresponding rise in electricity generated by cleaner fuels, especially natural gas.

The picture is less encouraging globally. Although a report by Reuters shows that greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized nations fell by 1.3 percent in 2012, with the biggest drop being seen in the United States, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions still rose 1.4 percent worldwide that year, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.*

From 2018... 

*https://www.realclearenergy.org/art..._gas_is_slashing_us_co2_emissions_110310.html

Thanks to Natural Gas, US CO2 Emissions Lowest Since 1985
By Jude Clemente
July 06, 2018

At 80 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), the U.S. just hit another record for dry natural gas production, a 46 percent increase since 2008 when the “shale gas revolution” started. The economic and energy security advantages are well known, but what has gotten less attention is how huge the environmental benefits of producing and using more natural gas have been.

In particular, mounting domestic supply has increasingly pushed us to more gas use in the electricity sector, which accounts for 35 percent of our total gas usage, especially noticeable the past week with air conditioners ramping up to fight the heat wave. U.S. gas needed for electricity has increased 40 percent over the past decade to ~26 Bcf/d — pushing gas to become our main source of power in 2016.

Gas power plants are mushrooming all over the country, with almost a 20 percent gas capacity gain of 90,000 megawatts from 2017–2020 alone. Bolstered by rising efficiency, the more that we have turned to natural gas, the more our CO2 emissions have plummeted. Our power emissions are now the lowest they have been since 1985. As the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has shown, electricity is unique in that it is the only sector where emissions are actually declining, thanks mostly to natural gas.

Gas has cut 50 percent more emissions since 2005 than wind and solar power combined. Natural gas is the reason why President Obama’s now pulled back Clean Power Plan has become completely irrelevant: We are set to surpass his reduction goals a decade early. 

In fact, not just lowering emissions directly by more use, a natural gas backbone for the power grid gives us the critical peaking ability to enable a deeper penetration of renewables. Gas plants have the unique ability to quickly ramp up and hit maximum output in a matter of minutes, compensating for “when the wind isn’t blowing” or “the sun isn’t shining.” With capacity factors in the 33–43 percent range even on good days, naturally intermittent wind and solar are “unavailable more than they are available.” So as the required backup, natural gas that enjoys a much more reliable 85–90 percent range will remain crucial as the complement for renewables.
*
Read that last paragraph again all you crazed greenies... Without a CLEANER DEPENDABLE source to back up the flaky and unreliable renewables --- We could not afford to ACQUIRE much more wind and solar...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 31, 2019)

eagle1462010 said:


>



*Yes he does always lie about global warming.*


----------



## daveman (Dec 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Look, Skippy, you can eat all your own shit you want.  Just don't expect normal people to believe you when you say it's yummy.


----------



## OldBiologist (Jan 1, 2020)

The hypothesis of man made global warming (and it is really only that) might be true but there is just no good reason for us to be throwing around billions of dollars within global economies by trading carbon credits between countries and corporations.

The reason I believe MMGW is merely a hypothesis is that there are a couple broad and fatal, IMO, problems.

— I doubt the ability to accurately measure global temperatures as precisely as have been claimed, with the exception of the only very recent measurements obtained by remote sensing. Mush of the data is collected from stations never intended for the purpose of determining global climate change.

— Correlations, where they can even be demonstrated at all, mean little to nothing because correlation does not mean causation. Only actual experiments can verify whether a correlation is in fact the result of some cause and effect.

— Which brings up the next problem, no experiment can be done to verify or falsify any observed global correlations because it is impossible to even establish a control for a planetary climate experiment. Ideally, we’d need an exact copy of earth, minus humans.

— Finally, climate has changed repeatedly and dramatically over the millennia with the complete absence of man made technology, or even man for that matter. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that current changes are due to factors similar to what have happened throughout earth’s history, not something that came along in the last blink of an eye.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 8, 2020)

OldBiologist, how is it that   you can be so faithfully a follower of Charlie Darwin, but not Al Gore?
Do they not call you too a "denier"?  That must hurt.


----------



## OldBiologist (Jan 10, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> OldBiologist, how is it that   you can be so faithfully a follower of Charlie Darwin, but not Al Gore?
> Do they not call you too a "denier"?  That must hurt.



I haven’t found a pigeon hole yet that fits me well.  There are plenty of well controlled, peer reviewed, repeatable experiments published that clearly show evolution occurring. There are no such experiments for man made global warming, impossible to do as far as I can tell.

I think most evolution objections have to do with the origin of man. There are only hypothesis right now for the origin of man, or even life in general. It is difficult or impossible in either case as well to conduct actual experiments. Evolution is really a very simple idea, nothing at all remarkable about it but it was a huge Aha! initially. Evolution is nothing more than the fact that certain traits in individuals can, under some circumstances, increase the odds that an organism will be more successful in reproducing. That has been easily confirmed many times in laboratories around the world.

I think the really controversial stuff that bother most folks come from anthropologists and paleontologists, not evolutionary biologists. and yes, they call me a denier, stupid, ignorant of science, blah, blah, woof, woof. Of course if I ask them if they are a denier because they don’t believe in a god and then it’s oh, gee whiz, that’s different.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 10, 2020)

OldBiologist said:


> Evolution is nothing more than the fact that certain traits in individuals can, under some circumstances, increase the odds that an organism will be more successful in reproducing. That has been easily confirmed many times in laboratories around the world.
> .



Adaptation is NOT evolution.  Big difference.

The insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis render evolution utterly and completely impossible.  You speak of "odds" and ignore the REAL odds implicit in all biochemistry.


----------



## OldBiologist (Jan 10, 2020)

There is an adage regarding evolution, “Adapt or die”. So yes, adaptation is just another term that can describe evolution. Obviously this does not mean adaptation of an individual during one lifetime but adaptation of succeeding generations of individuals of a species over time.

Also, you are misunderstanding the element of chance involved. One can say with certainty that the odds of a group of molecules coming together in just the right combination to produce an eye are beyond astronomical. However, one can also say with certainty that the odds of a group of molecules coming together in just the right combination to produce any particle ball of dirt are just as astronomical and no one seems particularly impressed or upset by that. We are not concerned with simple chance however when cumulative selection in replicating systems is the process.

However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 10, 2020)

OldBiologist said:


> However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.



My critique of *The Blind Watchmaker *includes these excerpts:


_*P. 37: “If Paley’s explanation for any one of his examples was wrong we can’t make it right by multiplying up examples.”*_

(We CAN make evolution right by multiplying up examples however.)
_*

Ibid: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”*_

(Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution.  1859.)

*P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability.  Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times.  BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”  *

(Emphasis added, again.  If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability.  He defines one chance in 10 exp 40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”.  But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10 exp 301.  Science turned on its head for evolution.)


*P. 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”*

(No it couldn’t.  Not ever, ever.  Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:

From P. 315:* “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.”*  The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power.  Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power.)

*
P 81: “An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.”*

(Five percent of an eye is an enormous step, not one of the “inch-by-million-year-inch” steps evolutionists love to cite!  Moreover it is inconceivable that 5% of an eye worked even a fraction of a percent!  These are just more baseless and hopeful assumptions, devoid of science.  Tell us about the 5% of the proteins and enzymes needed for vision.  Five percent of a protein is worthless!  Five percent of sugar is either black carbon, or water or a gas.  Yum! Tasty AND nutritious.  Countless blind people have 90% of their eyes, with no vision whatsoever!)
*
P. 139: “Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.”*

(Infinite time has not elapsed since the earth is said by scientists to have formed.  Nor are there infinite opportunities.  Dawkins first says one chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible, then he states "anything is possible."  Please, this is utter nonsense.)

*P 230: Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”.*

(Such tolerance.  Such objectivity, impartiality, decency.  And finally - finally - such honesty.)

Would you like to see other examples of Dawkins' published nonsense?  It gets even worse in _*Climbing Mount Improbable *_and _*Viruses of the Mind *_to name but two.  Carl Sagan also published anti-science in one volume after another.  But this is only because he was a Leftist and agnostic.  Those credos go hand-in-hand with mendacity.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Tell us where you live so we can ridicule your homeland.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> OldBiologist said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is nothing more than the fact that certain traits in individuals can, under some circumstances, increase the odds that an organism will be more successful in reproducing. That has been easily confirmed many times in laboratories around the world.
> ...


What "insuperable statistics" are those?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> OldBiologist said:
> 
> 
> > However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.
> ...



Huh?  You dropped the context.  I have no idea what you think you're proving.
_*



ChemEngineer said:



			Ibid: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”
		
Click to expand...

*_


ChemEngineer said:


> (Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution.  1859.)
> 
> *P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability.  Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times.  BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”  *
> 
> (Emphasis added, again.  If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability.  He defines one chance in 10 exp 40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”.  But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10 exp 301.  Science turned on its head for evolution.)



I have no idea where he says what you claim.  Can you quote it?


*


ChemEngineer said:



			P. 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”
		
Click to expand...

*


ChemEngineer said:


> (No it couldn’t.  Not ever, ever.  Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:



The quote wasn't found in the book.  It sure wasn't on page 46.





ChemEngineer said:


> From P. 315:* “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.”*  The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power.  Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power.)



Quote not found in the book.  Not at page 315.


*


ChemEngineer said:



			P 81: “An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.”
		
Click to expand...

*


ChemEngineer said:


> (Five percent of an eye is an enormous step, not one of the “inch-by-million-year-inch” steps evolutionists love to cite!  Moreover it is inconceivable that 5% of an eye worked even a fraction of a percent!  These are just more baseless and hopeful assumptions, devoid of science.  Tell us about the 5% of the proteins and enzymes needed for vision.  Five percent of a protein is worthless!  Five percent of sugar is either black carbon, or water or a gas.  Yum! Tasty AND nutritious.  Countless blind people have 90% of their eyes, with no vision whatsoever!)



Dawkins said "5% vision is better than no vision at all."  I can't copy and paste from Kindle, so forum members will have to read what Dawkins said for themselves.  The quote is on page 80 of the Kindle version of the book.


*



ChemEngineer said:



			P. 139: “Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.”
		
Click to expand...

*


ChemEngineer said:


> (Infinite time has not elapsed since the earth is said by scientists to have formed.  Nor are there infinite opportunities.  Dawkins first says one chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible, then he states "anything is possible."  Please, this is utter nonsense.)



Anything is possible GIVEN INFINITE TIME.  I fail to see why you don't understand that.  I have no idea what "infinite opportunities" means.  I don't see where Dawkins used the phrase.   None of this is discusses anywhere near page 139.


*


ChemEngineer said:



			P 230: Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”.
		
Click to expand...

*


ChemEngineer said:


> (Such tolerance.  Such objectivity, impartiality, decency.  And finally - finally - such honesty.)
> 
> Would you like to see other examples of Dawkins' published nonsense?  It gets even worse in _*Climbing Mount Improbable *_and _*Viruses of the Mind *_to name but two.  Carl Sagan also published anti-science in one volume after another.  But this is only because he was a Leftist and agnostic.  Those credos go hand-in-hand with mendacity.



I didn't find this comment in the book.  It certainly isn't anywhere near page 230.

I have no interest in watching you misquote and mischaracterize Dawkins.  If you want to quote him accurately, then have at it.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 11, 2020)

*Climbing Mount Improbable*, by Richard Dawkins

Selected excerpts from my critique:

Page 77:  “Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining.  And complicated is just another word for improbable - and therefore demanding of explanation. . . . You cannot have it both ways.  Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he _needs_ an explanation in his own right.  Or he is not, in which case he cannot_ provide_ an explanation.”

(To pretend that science has all the answers, or will ultimately FIND all the answers is pure anti-science folly.  Where is it written that man must and will learn everything? How much above us is Nature's God, as written in the Declaration of Independence?  Finally, this is supposed to be a science book, and one invariably finds the Bible cited by those who hate and demean the very Book they bring up so often, in the name of "science."  God says "I am."  That is quite complete. Our minds can't adequately grasp the invisible crisscrossing of the broad electromagnetic spectrum all around us, or even gravity waves.  How can we possibly comprehend their Creator?)

Page 79  “It was Darwin’s great achievement to discover the gentle gradients winding up the other side of the mountain.”

(If synthesis of hemoglobin is such a “gentle gradient”, why don’t we make some in the laboratory, in the very same way the body does.  That shouldn’t be too hard, should it.

The number of different combinations for its components exceed 10exp190.  And one chance in 10exp50 [a hundred thousand billion billion billion billion billion] is absolutely impossible.  Evolutionists cannot explain the mechanisms of protein synthesis that wend their way ever closer to an enzyme one percent at a time; they cannot show precisely HOW each incremental percent of an enzyme enhances survival, because even one half of an enzyme is not functional.  This argument of “gentle gradients” is really quite absurd.)

P. 101 - “(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard.  If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.”

(Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle.  What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”.  Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it.  Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”.  )

P. 139 - “It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times.”
(And all advanced orders just happen to have two eyes and see with the protein retinol, which flips back and forth from its trans- to its cis isomer so everything can see.  Convergent evolution, around the globe, forty to sixty times?  Not from random mutations, sorry.  Impossible.)

P. 155 –  (Figure 5-10.  Dawkins mislabeled the “leaving angle”, showing the path of light INSIDE glass instead of OUTSIDE it.  His error is so glaring, that Dawkins mistakenly shows the angle of incidence as equal to the angle of refraction.  Dawkins has disparagingly referred to MY ignorance.  I here return the favor.)
P. 196 - “Nothing is as difficult to evolve as we humans imagine it to be.”

(Evolve me a new bacterium from scratch, will you?  Just one.)
P. 287 - “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

(There you go.  An elephant is just one big infection.  Ain’t science amazin?

Now to be fair to the author, he pointed out that he feels that mitochondria in the nucleus evolved from bacteria.  But he does not say that the cell “was a colony of bacteria”.  He says it “IS” a colony of bacteria.  I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.)


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 11, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Climbing Mount Improbable*, by Richard Dawkins
> 
> Selected excerpts from my critique:
> 
> ...


I have to buy the Kindle version of _The Blind Watchmaker_ to dissect your criticism of that book.  I'm not buying another book just so I can criticize your attacks on it.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 11, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



I'm a German undear ignorant, intrigant, arrogant and  aggressive asshole, U.S.-American one.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 11, 2020)

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 11, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.


One more time - Climate Change = Weather.  This is all you need to know.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 12, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.
> ...



Hör endlich mal mit deinem ideoligisiertem Blödgeschmarre auf und fang das Nachdenken an, Volldepp, boaniga.


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 12, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Yep, I think you FINALLY got it.  Climate Change = Weather.  Good for you! (Just a hint of sarcasm.)


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 12, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 12, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...



The U.S.army trains by the way in the moment to move very fast 20,000 U.S.-soldiers from Germany into the East of Europe. What about to train to bring them home yesterday, instead to try to solve the self made trumplems of the U.S.A in a nuclear war against Russia and China?


----------



## OldBiologist (Jan 12, 2020)

Are you under the impression that all that hyperbole proves anything? Everything published in science is not only subject to criticism, it is expected to be criticized and falsified if it can be. This is the only way a theory can be sustained.

Here is an example of one of the experimental proofs of evolution.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

This particular experiment has been going for over 30 years. However, let’s be honest, there is absolutely nothing I can say here that’s going to change your mind about it. That’s fine. As I said, people believe all kinds of stuff, believe whatever you want. You have your rules, I have mine. Mine are that I accept as knowledge those things that can be experimentally proved or, through inductive probability, be proved to my personal satisfaction through direct experience. Anything else can be answered with I don’t know. So, knock yourself out.




ChemEngineer said:


> OldBiologist said:
> 
> 
> > However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 12, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.


...to be an ignorant fool denier. You are right, that is about the limit of your knowledge on the topic.


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 12, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.
> ...


Climate Change = Weather.  You're welcome, ya knucklehead.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 12, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> Climate Change = Weather.


Wow! Have you told the scientists this?!?!?!

It will be like Good Will Hunting, if Will was a mentally challenged ferret.


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 12, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change = Weather.
> ...


Please refer to post #120 in this thread.  Thank you.  And please don't forget - Climate Change = Weather.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 12, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...


This may come as a shock:

I will not be referring or deferring to the insane moron denier rants. I will defer to scientists, not a goober like you that would get laughed out of a 7th grade science class.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Sep 30, 2020)

The oceans are blue.  Everyone knows this.
Why are they blue? Because water absorbs infrared radiation and it does so far better than carbon dioxide does.

Why is the ocean blue?.

Here are the infrared spectra of CO2 and H2O:






Not only is water far more efficient at absorbing infrared radiation, but water vapor is ~15,000 ppmv in the atmosphere vs. CO2's ~400 ppmv.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 30, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





ChemEngineer said:


> The oceans are blue.  Everyone knows this.
> Why are they blue? Because water absorbs infrared radiation and it does so far better than carbon dioxide does.
> 
> Why is the ocean blue?.
> ...



Then please tell me why Climate Alarmists claim the Thermosphere absorbs all that heat and little affects the oceans (which I find counter intuitive)
I could see it absorbing SOME of it...but not a significant portion of it.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Sep 30, 2020)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...



Climate Alarmists say lots of things that make no sense.  I cannot explain their comments but talk about counterintuitive?  How does all the supposed heat get down to the earth from the Thermosphere some fifty miles high.


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2020)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bluzman61 said:
> ...


Ahhh, but don't forget, for a while they claimed the "missing" heat was being stored _at the bottom of the ocean_.


----------

