# Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 23, 2013)

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 23, 2013)

Let's not take that route.

The "pollutant" argument is just semantic nonsense.  An atmosphere of nitrogen or even O3 (ozone) is just as incapable of supporting life.  That's not the point.  

The point is that we can have too much (and too little) of a good thing.  The GHGs in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a temperature comfortable for human life and all the other life that's evolved here.  As has been noted, the biggest contributor to that is water vapor but CO2 and methane and a dozen other lesser compounds have their input into the process.  And, of course, CO2 keeps the world's plants alive.  

That our atmosphere contains some CO2 is not the result of a human choice.  That it contains significantly more than it did prior to the industrial revolution IS.  Unfortunately, for the most part of that period, we were ignorant of what the effect of that would be.  Now we know better but, still, some folks don't want to act.  They are afraid of losing the lifestyles to which they've become accustomed.  And many don't like agreeing to act because they see it as a political surrender.  The objections of others are religiously-based.  And some are simply stupid.

AGW is quite real.  It has not ended.  It will hurt us all.  We need to act.  Those are true statements.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 23, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...


The most prominent element of our atmosphere is nitrogen.  Limit yourself to nothing but a nitrogen atmosphere and see how long you can live.
Your premise is flawed and your experiment is idiotic.  A tree would die if it had nothing but an oxygen atmosphere, does that mean oxygen is a pollutant?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 23, 2013)

A more pertinent question is "Do you believe humans should not seek to limit the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to earlier levels because "it is not a pollutatant" or because plants need it to survive?


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 23, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...



Oxygen could become a pollutant, if there was too much of it in the atmosphere.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 23, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Further proof that the AGW church members will believe anything.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 23, 2013)

This whole "pollutant" nonsense is a meaningless semantical detour.  To respond to it is to give the deniers precisely what they want.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 23, 2013)

Well.......nobody really cares but since its one of the topics of the day >>>

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Carbon Dioxide is a food for plant life that feed animals that sustain life for other animals. it's a vicious cycle


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 23, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



No, Warmers are not part of the Death Worshiping AGWcult

Nope

Where do we get these strange ideas about the Warmers?

I support Federal Funding of Mandatory Deprogramming for all the Warmers


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 23, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS



I'm glad to see the skeptics have no political agenda in these arguments.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS
> ...



no differnt than the warmers.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 23, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS



Adolf Hitler: *Traitors* are defined not by themselves, but by the people they betray.

Feeling a bit like Hitler, eh...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS
> ...



hitler would support you he was a control freak like warmers are.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 24, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...



Written by the troglodyte who sent me a personal message saying "**** go to hell."

LOL! Your lack of intellect is a joke.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2013)

You do realize it was a neg response to your neg response? oh and PM discussion in open forum is a no no
Bye Bye 
As for your comment can't refute the facts so you troll?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 24, 2013)

Just as an aside, do you not see a conflict between identifying yourself as a "constitutional watchdog" and accusing a broad range of political persuasion to be traitorous?

Let me guess.  It wasn't the US Constitution you're trying to safeguard.  Uganda's?  The Third Reich's?  The Stalinist's? The traitorous Confederacy's?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 24, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Reduce air pollution.  Stop breathing.  We promise to miss you.  But we will enjoy the cleaner air.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Just as an aside, do you not see a conflict between identifying yourself as a "constitutional watchdog" and accusing a broad range of political persuasion to be traitorous?
> 
> Let me guess.  It wasn't the US Constitution you're trying to safeguard.  Uganda's?  The Third Reich's?  The Stalinist's? The traitorous Confederacy's?



What in the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with this thread?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 24, 2013)

At least as much as ANYTHING you've posted here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> At least as much as ANYTHING you've posted here.



I was on topic with this comment


bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...


Can't refute it move along.


----------



## daveman (Nov 24, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...


Do you always let comedians do your thinking for you?

Obamacare Backlash - Conservative Victory Lap - The Colbert Report - 2013-18-11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 24, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...



There is no AGW church and Smilodonfatalis' comments are not proof of anything.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 24, 2013)

Smilois the onfatalis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



You post this thread and expect intellect? You propose how Oxygen could make your hitlist of phoney pollutants and expect intellect?

Water vapor is  the dominant Greenhouse gas.  Clearly water kills, but ignore that for now.Why arent CLOUDS a pollutant?

Youre gonna have a very very long list Smiley..........


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 24, 2013)

Have you ever made the argument that CO2 is not a pollutant?  That it feeds our plant life? That because of those two points we should not be trying to reduce its level in the atmosphere?  You know others have and you know it is a bogus argument.

I did not approve of Smilodonfatalis' tactic with her lead post.  Too antagonistic.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 24, 2013)

It's NOT a pollutant. Has no adverse health effects at 400ppm when your lungs are at 4 or 5 times that level.. And it is a VITAL ingredient in the Carbon cycle wrt plant life. 

Smiley has his issues, but you (Abe) have your own to contend with. Why not water vapor? Because you can't villianize it, tax it and use it to control a world economy and redistribute social justice..


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> It's NOT a pollutant. Has no adverse health effects at 400ppm when your lungs are at 4 or 5 times that level.. And it is a VITAL ingredient in the Carbon cycle wrt plant life.
> 
> Smiley has his issues, but you (Abe) have your own to contend with. Why not water vapor? Because you can't villianize it, tax it and use it to control a world economy and redistribute social justice..



Do you really want to stick with that?

Are you accusing the world's climate scientists of ignoring the effects of water vapor?

Do you believe the effects of water vapor in any way nullify the effects of CO2?

Do you believe the magnitude of the effects of water vapor make the effects of CO2 somehow irrelevant?

What is the average lifetime of a water molecule in the atmosphere?  A CO2 molecule?

Pray tell, what factor controls the level of water vapor in the atmosphere?

And, pray tell, what does water vapor do when greenhouse warming from CO2 raises the temperature, say, 1C?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It's NOT a pollutant. Has no adverse health effects at 400ppm when your lungs are at 4 or 5 times that level.. And it is a VITAL ingredient in the Carbon cycle wrt plant life.
> ...



Yep
Yep 
Absolutely.
Yep
Dont care.
Weather, Nature and Man
Nobody really agrees..


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

Wrong on every count.

The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled by the global temperature.  When CO2 is increased and more IR is trapped, water vapor will increase.  In a few hundred years, when CO2 levels are actually reduced, less IR will be trapped, temperatures will descend and water vapor will follow it.

ps: +1C from CO2 will be +3C after the water vapor does its thing.


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



...and your head would get hot, thus proving AGW forever.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wrong on every count.
> 
> The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled by the global temperature.  When CO2 is increased and more IR is trapped, water vapor will increase.  In a few hundred years, when CO2 levels are actually reduced, less IR will be trapped, temperatures will descend and water vapor will follow it.
> 
> ps: +1C from CO2 will be +3C after the water vapor does its thing.



Nope...  My answers were all correct.. Pick one and we'll discuss.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 25, 2013)

Stick your head in a substance consisting of hydrogen and oxygen and see how long you last. Is hydrogen a pollutant? Is oxygen evil?  Why do radical enviro-nuts seem to regret the fact that we are all carbon based life forms?


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...




Here's an experiment:

See how long an ecosystem functions if plants do not have Carbon Dioxide.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


 Oxygen makes people happy. 

Why Anthropogenic climate change is bogus:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuoP1c5Uimc]The History behind the Climate Change Fraud 1/5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdqLZEEn-w]The History behind the Climate Change Fraud 2/5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZJUGoA5dFU]The History behind the Climate Change Fraud 3/5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/hvy5lsg9pCs]The History behind the Climate Change Fraud 4/5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/qOtru-qHSVY]The History behind the Climate Change Fraud 5/5 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


How toxic would it become if its concentration changed by hundredths of a percent?


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Climate Models Exaggerate the Effects of CO2, William Happner, Professor of Physics, Princeton University



> Obama is reported to have said:
> _&#8220;It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I really have enjoyed nice weather.&#8221;_
> What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years.


Professor Happner also says:


> The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the _United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change_ (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm.
> *CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today*. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without.
> The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this &#8220;_positive feedback_&#8221; also has been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Here's an experiment for you to do:

Think water isn't a pollutant?  Then put your head in the sink and stay there for an hour.

Here's another experiment for you:  pull your head out of your ass, moron.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

FlaCalTenn said:
			
		

> 1) Q: Do you really want to stick with that?
> 
> 1) A: Yep
> 
> ...



1) Your call.

2) The phrase "water vapor" occurs 85 times within the text of the AR5's Working Group 1 Final Draft - the Physical Science Basis.  How many of those would you care to review? 

3) You believe the effects of water vapor "nullify" the effects of CO2.  By removing it from the atmosphere through acid rain?

4) You believe the magnitude of water vapor effects make CO2 irrelevant.  The level of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased from the world's increased temperatures.  It is, as you well know, the effects of water vapor that make CO2's warming more significant.

5) While CO2 spends hundreds of years in the atmosphere, the average lifetime of a water molecule in the atmosphere is nine days.

6) The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly proportional to global temperatures.  Surely you recall "vapor pressure" in high school physics.

7) 1C -> 3C


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Temperature, Not Our Emissions, Control CO2

Marc Morano, 


> But despite the man-made global warming fear movements clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth's climate and temperature--not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earths climate or temperature.


 
Marc Morano

Morano, who has spent years researching climate change, environmental, and energy issues, traveled to Greenland in 2007 to investigate global warming claims. As Senate staff, Morano also attended the United Nations climate eco-conferences held in Kenya, Indonesia, and Poland in 2006, 2007, and 2008. He graduated from George Mason Universityin Political Science and wrote a documentary "Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths in 2000, which uncovered massive exaggerations on claims made by feel-good people in the entertainment industry that, if true, 50 times the size of the Amazon rainforest would have been cleared by the year 2000. Today, 94 percent of the rain forest is still intact, including a large percentage that has already been reclaimed that was "cleared." 

So he is probably not very popular with the BS community that uses exaggeration to make an invalid point to prop up their feel-good House of Cards if only others will "do something," which is usually to send them lots and lots of money to do nature's work for us. 

He is the only photographer who was ever assaulted at the White House, and it was on Clinton's watch, too. Why? Because the militant left deals with "enemies" brown-shirt style when they bring up the facts on environmental matters that do not go along with the "save the planet" thesis that rakes in lots and lots of money!

   ​ 
   ​ 
   ​ 
   ​


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Isn't it amazing how much Christopher Monckton looks like a cross between Rodney Dangerfield and Marty Feldman.


----------



## daveman (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Isn't it amazing how much Christopher Monckton looks like a cross between Rodney Dangerfield and Marty Feldman.


Speaking for the climate realists, we accept your acknowledgement that you are unable to refute the facts Monckton presented.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


Yeah. Isn't it wonderful how Lord Monckton goes after the truth, finds out what it is, and shares it so clearly and succinctly to demystify all the liars looking for handouts based on junk science.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

Christopher Monckton is a complete and utter fool.

Surely at some point or another, you folks realize that the majority of the most well-known and outspoken AGW deniers aren't qualified to speak on the subject.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Yeah. Isn't it wonderful how Lord Monckton goes after the truth, finds out what it is, and shares it so clearly and succinctly to demystify all the liars looking for handouts based on junk science.



Yeah... yeah sure.  But, seriously; Feldman and Dangerfield.  He could be their son.  Really.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

And why do you call him "Lord"?


----------



## daveman (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Christopher Monckton is a complete and utter fool.
> 
> Surely at some point or another, you folks realize that the majority of the most well-known and outspoken AGW deniers aren't qualified to speak on the subject.



Neither are you...but you keep mouthing off.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 25, 2013)

CO2 Does not drive climate, never has.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> And why do you call him "Lord"?


 I'm not British, but in his nation, distinguished persons may be given the title of "Lord" for any number of reasons from distinction in public or educational matters, or inheritance from a distinguished family. It's THEIR country, not mine. I would not for example, clamor for the title of "Princess Prairie Flower" on account of one of my direct ancestors distinguishing himself in war (as did his grandson), 3 generations ago. We simply don't view life from the same perspectives on this side of the pond as to steal thunder from other generations, even if we're proud of them. 

Does my silly answer match your silly question?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 25, 2013)

No, that is incorrect.  A lordship is a specific honorific that is given to members of the House of Lords.  Monckton is not, and never has been, a member of the House of Lords.  

That alone should tell you that the man is a complete doofus.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> No, that is incorrect. A lordship is a specific honorific that is given to members of the House of Lords. Monckton is not, and never has been, a member of the House of Lords.
> 
> That alone should tell you that the man is a complete doofus.


Perhaps he should be given a lordship. Because he's not afraid to say who's naughty about exaggerating the facts. 

<giggle>​


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 25, 2013)

Kosh said:


> CO2 Does not drive climate, never has.


It certainly doesn't, but the hot air being proffered around by the hot-headed handout crowd seems to bring them ill-gotten gains when they exaggerate, obfuscate, and escalate fraud-filled spiels to gain the green gold they get by making people feel like good Samaritans for following them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> No, that is incorrect.  A lordship is a specific honorific that is given to members of the House of Lords.  Monckton is not, and never has been, a member of the House of Lords.
> 
> That alone should tell you that the man is a complete doofus.



Our bud Abraham is constantly struggling to be at odds with the entire reference and science section of mankind's library.. 
I don't think the Oxford dictionary would screw up the various appelations of lordship... 



> lord: definition of lord in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)
> 
> *a man of noble rank or high office; a nobleman: *lords and ladies were entertained here&#8226;(Lord) (in the UK) *a title given formally to a baron, and less formally to a marquess, earl, or viscount (prefixed to a family or territorial name)*:
> Lord Derby
> ...



Being a politico is only one path to true lordship.. ((About 19 Pounds sterling will BUY you a lordship, but your friends will snicker. ))

And since Mockton is a genuinely a viscount -- lord of the descendency of his manor -- that prefix is legitimate if you like to or have to acknowledge that sort of thing.. 

Abe must have gotten this political ammo from one of his truly UNBIASED sources of info like skepticalrabidscience or the primadonnas at rationalewiki...


----------



## IanC (Nov 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > No, that is incorrect.  A lordship is a specific honorific that is given to members of the House of Lords.  Monckton is not, and never has been, a member of the House of Lords.
> ...



Moncton has a passport identifying him as a lord. This is even less an issue than Obama's birth certificate.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...










Ummmm, yeah.  I see you have about as much scientific knowledge as most of the idiots out there.  I suggest you look at what the real results of your little stupid experiment are and then get back to us when you have a tad more knowledge than the average rodent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



By that standard water is a pollutant. Fuck, if I use that standard, a vacuum, which is the total absence of everything, is a pollutant.

If you knew anything about science you would know that oxygen is a poison.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Let's not take that route.
> 
> The "pollutant" argument is just semantic nonsense.  An atmosphere of nitrogen or even O3 (ozone) is just as incapable of supporting life.  That's not the point.
> 
> ...



If all those statements are true you should have no problem giving exact numbers and detailed evidence that show how much an increase in carbon dioxide, which will result in longer growing seasons, more food production, and a substantial increase in arable land, will hurt us.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...



You would die if you had a 100% oxygen atmosphere, which is why the OP is so stupid.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> No, that is incorrect.  A lordship is a specific honorific that is given to members of the House of Lords.  Monckton is not, and never has been, a member of the House of Lords.
> 
> That alone should tell you that the man is a complete doofus.









I'm giving you the link to wiki because that seems to be the limit of your understanding.  Monckton is an "hereditary peer" in other words he inherited the title and the sobriquet of "Lord".
Not that you could ever understand something that complex....

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search 


Page semi-protected


The Right Honourable
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
OStJ

photograph 
In Washington, D.C. (January 2010) 

Personal details


Born
14 February 1952 (age 61) 

Political party
UK Independence Party 

Spouse(s)
Juliet Mary Anne Malherbe Jensen 

Relations
Rosa Monckton (sister), Timothy, Jonathan and Anthony (brothers) 

Parents
Major-General Gilbert Monckton (deceased) and Marianna Letitia Bower 

Alma mater
Churchill College, Cambridge
University College, Cardiff 

Occupation
Politician, journalist 

Religion
Roman Catholicism 

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, SMOM (born 14 February 1952) is a British public speaker[1] and hereditary peer. He is known for his work as a journalist, Conservative political advisor, UKIP political candidate and for his invention of the mathematical puzzle Eternity.[2]

Early on in his public speaking career topics centred on his mathematical puzzle and conservative politics.[1] In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to controversial views on climate change,[3][4][5][6] the European Union[7] and social policy.



Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A more pertinent question is "Do you believe humans should not seek to limit the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to earlier levels because "it is not a pollutatant" or because plants need it to survive?



Why is that a pertinent question?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS
> ...



That position would make more sense if there was no political agenda on your side of the discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> No, that is incorrect.  A lordship is a specific honorific that is given to members of the House of Lords.  Monckton is not, and never has been, a member of the House of Lords.
> 
> That alone should tell you that the man is a complete doofus.



What the fuck are you gibbering about now?

The 743 members of the House of Lords are not the only people on the planet that have a legitimate claim on the title of lord. There are hereditary lords that never serve that are still entitled.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 26, 2013)

Wrong.

Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords | Environment | theguardian.com

The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote &#8230; [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: *"You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords.* Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: "In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a 'member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house &#8230; In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house."

The letter from Beamish to Monckton continues: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a member 'without the right to sit or vote'. I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."

The Guardian understands that the House of Lords has been consulting with its lawyers on this issue since the ABC radio interview aired. It is not yet clear what form of sanction the Lords has available to it should Monckton persist with his claim.

Last year, the then clerk of the parliaments, Michael Pownall, wrote to Monckton stressing that he was not entitled to call himself a member, nor should he use parliament's famous portcullis symbol on his letterheads or lecture slides, as he has done for a number of years.

Monckton wrote back stating that "the House of Lords Act 1999, which purported to exclude hereditary peers from membership of the House of Lords, is defective". He argued that the act removed the right to sit or vote in the upper house, but did not remove membership because peerages are granted by letters patent, which are a personal gift of the monarch. Monckton claimed in the letter that "only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 act was a general law."

Buckingham Palace was drawn into the dispute when it was revealed that Pownall had sought advice from the Lord Chamberlain, a key officer in the royal household, on the potential misuse of the portcullis emblem due to it being the property of the Queen. The Buckingham Palace website states that any misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning *Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.*

Monckton has since been using a slightly altered portcullis emblem on his lecture slides. The two chains hanging either side of portcullis are now kinked instead of straight. It is not known whether the Lord Chamberlain is content with the change. A spokesperson told the Guardian that the palace was "aware of the issue", but it had a policy of not commenting on private correspondence between it and an individual.

*Monckton is currently on a lecture tour of Australia discussing climate change. The tour has been dogged by venue cancellations after he referred to the Australian government's former climate advisor Prof Ross Garnaut as a fascist during a recent lecture in Los Angeles. Footage of the lecture also showed Monckton displaying a swastika next to one of Garnaut's quotes. Monckton later apologised for "having made the point I was trying to make in such a catastrophically stupid and offensive way".*


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords | Environment | theguardian.com
> 
> ...










  And yet, he's still a "lord" because of his hereditary title.  Grasping at straws are you now?  Why yes, yes you are...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...


 
And yet it is a meaningless title, kinda like a certain pop star who used to call himself "Prince".


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Not a meaningless title in England. The history and heritage is deep and full of tradition.. 

To answer the original question from Abraham.. 
"Why do you insist on calling him Lord?".. *Because he IS a Lord of Great Britain*.. 
Your rabid partisian sources of spin did you you in yet again.. 

The squabble about honorary membership in the House of Lords is a separate domestic issue for THEM to sort out. England STILL recognizes the titles...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
What part of this do you not understand?



> *"You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords.* Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I don't understand why that political dispute about honorary membership in the House of Lords has ANYTHING TO DO with a valid historical title. It doesn't.. You and I dont NEED to know the nuances about how an act of Parliarment nullifies or doesn't nullify a Royal Proclamation.. According to the Oxford Dictionary or his British Passport --- he IS properly titled. 

What part of the Oxford Dictionary do *YOU* not understand??  He is a titled Lord of Great Britain...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

I understand this:



> *Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> I understand this:
> 
> 
> 
> > *Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.*



It is his right and the right of OTHER TITLED LORDS to oppose that 1999 ruling.. Has nothing to do with the fact that he IS TITLED as Lord. 

If that legal challenge IS correct, than Parliarment did NOT have the authority thru "General Law" to strip them of "honorary" membership. That's a 300 yr old feud that has NOTHING TO DO with his valid title.. 

Even If they LOSE that challenge -- they will STILL BE "your Lordships"...


----------



## daveman (Nov 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> And yet it is a meaningless title, kinda like a certain pop star who used to call himself "Prince".



He called himself Prince because that's what his parents named him.
Prince Rogers Nelson (born June 7, 1958), known by his mononym Prince, is an American singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, and actor.​


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









That is actually untrue...it was only by the 1999 House of Lords Act that hereditary peers were barred from sitting in the House of Lords.  They still enjoy many perks however, especially within the Commonwealth.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







And, until the 1999 Act he DID have the right to sit.  His father sat, and Monckton as well would have sat, till that time.  There is some question about the act itself and you may see it reversed.  There was considerable politics involved in it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 26, 2013)

Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords".  That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.

Monckton is a fool; also clear and indisputable.


----------



## daveman (Nov 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords".  That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.
> 
> Monckton is a fool.


You've been educated on the peerage and the proper titles for same, so now you're just being butthurt.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords".  That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.
> 
> Monckton is a fool; also clear and indisputable.










Yes, a political hack like you would claim that.  However, back in 2010 he was invited to debate at the Oxford Union against AGW supporters and he won the debate.  So...once again you lose.  Doesn't it bug you that you fail so epically so often?



Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe

Source:  SPPI

Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that global warming is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrews University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the worlds premier debating society, carried the motion That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.




the Oxford Union - Formal Thursday Debates


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords".  That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.
> 
> Monckton is a fool; also clear and indisputable.



Yes.


----------



## daveman (Nov 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords".  That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.
> ...





daveman said:


> You've been educated on the peerage and the proper titles for same, so now you're just being butthurt.


Yes indeed.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I understand this:
> ...


 
It is not his right or the right of any titled Lords to declare themselves members of parliament when they are clearly not members.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > And yet it is a meaningless title, kinda like a certain pop star who used to call himself "Prince".
> ...


 

So you admit that he is a "prince" in name only.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Right.  So by law, he is not a sitting, voting member of parliament.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
And until that law is reversed, it remains the law of the land, which means that he has no legal right to call himself a member of parliament.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords". That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.
> ...


 
Fortunately for all of us, science is not decided by a debate club.


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...










I agree, so why do you accept it when the IPCC sits around a room and parses their "consensus"?
I see a logic fail on your part.


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










He doesn't.  He is however still a LORD.  Which you claimed he wasn't.  You failed.  NEXT!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Jon Lord (deceased keyboard player for the rock group Deep Purple is also a "Lord").  But so what?


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










Oh, gee I don't know.....maybe the fact that one's a NAME and the other is a TITLE.  Maybe you should pull your head from your ass and look up the difference?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

Monckton is a hereditary peer.  He deserves the title "3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.  He does NOT deserve the title "Lord" and he is not a member of the House of Lords, AS HE HAS CLAIMED.

Note the URL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Monckton
Political career
Monckton inherited a peerage after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999,[12] which provided that "[n]o-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage." Monckton asserts that the Act is flawed and unconstitutional, and has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to US Senators,[13] and also as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote."[14]
The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][15] In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."[16][17]
Monckton stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the Lords after the 1999 reforms. He first stood for a Conservative seat in a March 2007 by-election, and was among 31 of 43 candidates who received no votes.[18] He subsequently stood in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008,[19] July 2009,[20] and June 2010,[21] again receiving no votes. He was highly critical of the way the Lords was reformed, describing the procedure in the March 2007 by-election, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion."[22]


More importantly, he has no qualifications in anything related to climate science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not *and never has been* a member of the House of Lords".  That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.
> ...



So now you know that *Lord* Mockton is a proper title.. Our job is done.. 

 

Does it hurt THAT MUCH for you to learn something as simple as that??


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

I believe he is owed the title Viscount.  I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord".  I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was.  I find such behavior egregious.  And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist.  His primary skill is as a polemicist.  He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.

Sorry, the man is a fool.

Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I believe he is owed the title Viscount.  I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord".  I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was.  I find such behavior egregious.  And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist.  His primary skill is as a polemicist.  He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.
> 
> Sorry, the man is a fool.
> 
> Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?



What you BELIEVE?? Seems to be a consistent pattern here that MOST of your knowledge is faith-based and rejects the library of mankind's knowledge. 

Today *you DENY and REJECT the Oxford Dictionary*, 400 yrs of tradition and history, and the titles of THOUSANDS of other Lords of England who never served in Parliament. 

Not too long ago -- you DENIED and REJECTED the first chapter of every statistics text ever written..  And then in another thread on setting up a polling experiment --- pretty much confirmed that you never ever read even Chapter One.. 

Glad you think your "BELIEFS" are that powerful man.. But I think the list of knowledge you've rejected lately is becoming comical..


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

Christopher Monckton - RationalWiki


&#8220;&#8221;You won't see them flashing past, as they scuttle down to their noisome lairs&#8212;there to snivel in the darkness."   &#8212;Monckton on the Climategate scientists,[1] who were completely exonerated shortly after

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British aristocrat, deputy leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and a climate change denier. He constitutes an excellent argument in favour of revolutionary socialism.

One Guardian commenter said "If he didn't exist you really would have to invent him." It's not entirely clear the amusement gained would be worth it... wait, Sacha? Is that you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

ibid

*Science*

In his role as UKIP science spokesman, Monckton said that they would cut funding for climate science unless there arose "sufficient evidence" to change his mind. He also said that health risks associated with excessive salt consumption are merely "unjustifiable fears" and compared embryonic stem cell research to "the killing of very small children."[2] Monckton is a big promoter of the global warming conspiracy theory in which Barack Obama will cede US sovereignty to the United Nations, which will then enact a communist world government.[3]
His views on disease aren't much better. He wrote an article entitled The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS for a 1987 edition of American Spectator, stating quite clearly:[4]
&#8220;&#8221;There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.
He has since conceded that this would presently be unfeasible, but not that it would in any way have been a bad idea.
At least he considers alternative medicine should only be NHS-funded after it has been proven clinically.[2]
According to him, scientists "perhaps" should be required to certify that they are Christian belong to a religion before they are allowed to practice. No kidding:
&#8220;&#8221;Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions &#8211; Christianity outstanding among them &#8211; that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.[5]


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Christopher Monckton - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> You won't see them flashing past, as they scuttle down to their noisome lairsthere to snivel in the darkness."   Monckton on the Climategate scientists,[1] who were completely exonerated shortly after
> ...



OMG... 

THERE IT IS !!!!! Rejecting the Oxford Dictionary in favor of your Bible, written and maintained by the FAITHFUL at the wellspring of rational human knowledge at 

rationalwiki.com

The wiki for folks who BELIEVE they deserve their own truths....


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Nov 27, 2013)

Three pages of arguing over whether Monkton is a Lord or not?

Really?

How dreary.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

ibid

It's peer-reviewed!*

*Monckton likes to claim he has "peer-reviewed" publications under his belt. What he's usually referring to when he says this is an article he had published in the American Physical Society's "Forum on Physics and Society" issue of its newsletter. In fact, the first sentence of the article is part of an editor's note reading "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters."[6] Not that it would have gotten past peer review,[7] as just about every sentence contained an error.[8]
In an October 2012 opinion column on World Net Daily in which he insists climate change had nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy, he claimed to be "an appointed expert reviewer for the forthcoming 'Fifth Assessment Report' to be published by the United Nations&#8217; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."[9] Blogger Graham Readfearn contacted the IPCC secretariat on how one is "appointed" to be an "expert reviewer." The reply he received follows:
&#8220;&#8221;Anyone can register as an expert reviewer on the open online registration systems set up by the working groups. All registrants that provide the information requested and confirm their scientific expertise via a self-declaration of expertise are accepted for participation in the review. They are invited to list publications, but that is not a requirement and the section can be left blank when registering. There is no appointment.[10]


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher Monckton - RationalWiki
> ...



Yet you refute NOTHING they say about the man.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Three pages of arguing over whether Monkton is a Lord or not?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How dreary.



No one is either forcing you to attend or preventing you from livening things up.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

ibid

*I'm a Lord really, m'Lord*

Monckton's father Gilbert was one of those kicked out in 1999 when the hereditary complement of the House of Lords was cut to 92, thus leaving Christopher's status as Viscount of Brenchley a matter only of interest to the aristocracy nerd contingent on Wikipedia. Since Christopher inherited the title in 2006, he has consistently misrepresented himself as being a member of the House of Lords, a spectacular example of style over substance. He has various pseudolegal theories as to why this is the case, usually revolving around the notion that a hereditary peerage can only be withdrawn by the Crown on an individual basis, as the letter patent was granted on an individual basis.[11] This may well be true, but has nothing to do with whether said hereditary peer gets an automatic seat in the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.[12] The main point appears to be to represent himself in other countries as having governmental power and status that he does not when talking up climate change denial.
The House has asked that he desist in his frequent habit of implying, or outright claiming, to be a member in any way whatsoever. They have also requested, rather stridently, that he stop using a personal insignia closely resembling the portcullis insignia of the House of Lords, and are presently '"taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof."[13] Buckingham Palace (who control use of the insignia) did not directly comment on the claims, but just happened to point an enquiring journalist at the relevant trademark laws and the possible penalties for their violation.[14]
The House finally got fed up and wrote an open letter to Monckton in July 2011, telling him in unusually blunt language that "you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords."[15]


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

You are certifiably nuts and out of touch with reality.. One major gaff after 'nother.. 

This one started with your simple question of 

"Why do you insist on addressing Monckton as Lord" --- which was an admission on your part of massive ignorance about HOW and WHERE you get that title in Britain. And having you INSIST that it all revolves over your access to the House of Lords is patently false as shown in the Oxford Dictionary. 

But you spent 4 pages attempting to IMPLY that the only way you get titled as a Lord in Britain is to hold a seat in Parliament. (A blatant falsehood).. And that Monckton claims a seat in a seat in Parliament when he's only stated that he holds a traditional "non-seated" status in that body in spite of a 1999 law that MAY HAVE illegally changed that status.. 

It was entertaining for awhile to have you squeal about "what you believe" and quote from garbage cans like the rationalwiki.. And THEN --- just when I think the comedy was dying down. You insert the gem that the rationalwiki  ....................... "IS PEER REVIEWED"... 

HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA 

You're killing me here. Let's just flush the rest of your cred while this is still entertaining.. 



> lord (British title) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> LORD, in the British Isles, a general title for a prince or sovereign or for a feudal superior (especially a feudal tenant who holds directly from the king, i.e., a baron). In the United Kingdom the title today denotes a peer of the realm, *whether or not he sits in Parliament as a member of the House of Lords*.
> 
> ...



Peer Reviewed?? A bunch of rabidly biased primadonnas who need a special version of truth and can't use the same WIKI as the REST OF US? To write large what THEY BELIEVE instead of WHAT'S TRUE?? 

HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA 

Peer Reviewed? Yep.. That's damn funny.. Keep it up man... 
I need the laughs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I believe he is owed the title Viscount.  I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord".  I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was.  I find such behavior egregious.  And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist.  His primary skill is as a polemicist.  He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.
> 
> Sorry, the man is a fool.
> 
> Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?



Your beliefs are irrelevant.

By the way, the law you are talking about, which you have not read, was passed in 1999.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Three pages of arguing over whether Monkton is a Lord or not?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How dreary.



It is all he has, he can't win on the science.


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I believe he is owed the title Viscount.  I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord".  I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was.  I find such behavior egregious.  And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist.  His primary skill is as a polemicist.  He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.
> 
> Sorry, the man is a fool.
> 
> Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?










  You really are a moron.....  From wiki as that seems to be the limit of your comprehension..... and LORD knows we don't want to hurt your brain....


Formal titles[edit]
Sir: for men, formally if they have an English knighthood or if they are a Baronet, or generally as a term of general respect or flattery. Equivalent to "Madam" (see below).
Madam or Madame: for women, a term of general respect or flattery. Equivalent to "Sir" (see above). Both "Sir" and "Madam" are commonly used by workers performing a service for the target of the service, e.g. "May I take your coat, Ma'am?"

*Lord: for male viscounts, earls, and marquesses, as well as some of their children. (Style: Lordship or My Lord)*
Lady: for female viscounts, earls, and marquesses. (Style: Your Ladyship or My Lady)




English honorifics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > Three pages of arguing over whether Monkton is a Lord or not?
> ...



Don't know QW.. He might have had a noble mission here. 

I *BELIEVE* he threw himself under the bus to distract from the INITIAL stupidity of this entire thread. It was clear, he didn't like the thread. And possibly decided to selflessly sacrifice his cred and honor in order to derail it..


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe he is owed the title Viscount.  I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord".  I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was.  I find such behavior egregious.  And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist.  His primary skill is as a polemicist.  He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.
> ...



Finally, a pertinent reference.  I accept this.  Christopher Monckton is entitled to the honorific "Lord".  And he's a fool.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

How's about we shorten this process in the future? 

I have this handy guide hanging right under my beautiful multi-screen 40"+ flat panel computer displays..


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 27, 2013)

Then where would the fun be?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Nov 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> How's about we shorten this process in the future?
> 
> I have this handy guide hanging right under my beautiful multi-screen 40"+ flat panel computer displays..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > How's about we shorten this process in the future?
> ...



Funny as hell.....


----------



## daveman (Nov 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You fucked up...and it's MY fault?



And there is no question about it...you undeniably fucked up.  I knew Prince is his first name.  I never thought it was a title.

You, on the other hand...fucked up.


----------



## Politico (Nov 28, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



Their lack of intellect? It's called Photosynthesis idiot. Look it up.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 28, 2013)

Politico said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'm quite certain that Smilodonfatalis is aware of photosynthesis.  What you seem to be missing is what bigrebnc1775 chooses to tell us about himself when he speaks to other posters in that manner.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



I speak to dumb ass the way they deserve. got it dumb ass?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 30, 2013)

Why, yes, I do get it.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 30, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
Since he is not a prince and Prince is his name, how did I fuck up?  Do tell.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> How's about we shorten this process in the future?
> 
> I have this handy guide hanging right under my beautiful multi-screen 40"+ flat panel computer displays..





wow. that wipes out just about everything here


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 30, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


So, I say carbon dioxide is food for plants, and you call me a troglodyte and bitch about a return neg rep that you sent.
Why didn't you call me a mouth breathing knuckle dragging caveman? Trying to impress use little man big words?
Can't refute my facts so you insult 
FIRST THING.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 30, 2013)

Plants consume CO2.  Big whoop.  

AGW is real and we need to dramatically reduce GHG emissions.

How about you pick your knuckles off the ground and try to refute those facts, troglodyte?


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Plants consume CO2.  Big whoop.
> 
> AGW is real and we need to dramatically reduce GHG emissions.
> 
> How about you pick your knuckles off the ground and try to refute those facts, troglodyte?



do you know, offhand, how much of the CO2 increase is due to the temperature increase? it seems to be an underdiscussed area of climate science.

for the duration of this interglacial, has the relationship between CO2 and temperature been positive, negative or neutral?

so many questions, so little definitive evidence.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 30, 2013)

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 _released_ by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.  And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.  

What distinction are you trying to make?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.
> 
> The amount of CO2 _released_ by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.  And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.
> 
> What distinction are you trying to make?


Well, if it's so simple, why are the climate models always wrong?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.
> 
> The amount of CO2 _released_ by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.  And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.
> 
> What distinction are you trying to make?



The isotope measurement is not definitive. Far from it.  First its not very sensitive.  New carbon has a c13/c12 ratio of something like 1.1 and old carbon has a similiar ratio of about 1.09.  Divining the diff between these on a whole atmos level is difficult because those ratios have an overlapping stat distribution..

But more importantly,  there is no real marker on escaping Co2 from the oceans which has been recycled over the years and is 20 times larger than mans annual contributions.  CO2 can also be released from those Arctic CH4 leaks thru biochem breakdown (or from ocean CH4) and is indistinguishable from combustion by man.

Many studies point out the weaknesses of relying solely on isotope ratio.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.
> 
> The amount of CO2 _released_ by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.  And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.
> 
> What distinction are you trying to make?



More AGW propaganda.

CO2 often lags behind temperature. There is more proof showing that CO2 does NOT control climate than what the AGW church tell us.


----------



## daveman (Nov 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You thought it was a self-granted title.

It's okay.  You can admit you were wrong.  Mature people do that.


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.
> 
> The amount of CO2 _released_ by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.  And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.
> 
> What distinction are you trying to make?








Then why can't you present anything that is measurable?  Why is climatology, as a science, resorting to pseudo-scientific methods to try and push its agenda?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 30, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.
> ...



That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems.  They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.
> ...



Why do you waste so much of our time posting falsehoods?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Wow, don't think I've seen so much spin from a Tilt-A-Whirl. 

If the systems are so complex, how can you be so certain that your models contain all the necessary inputs, to lead to any definitive conclusion that CO2 is at the root of climate change?

This should be good.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 30, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...



They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling.  We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature.  That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It's simpler than that. Climate Science is a YOUNG, immature science with too much media attention.. The emphasis on the models derives from the NEED to be relevent to Public Policy. So the models FAIL because ((as WestWall said)), there is little attention paid to the MEASUREMENT and VALIDATION of the key parameters that the models munch on.

The PRODUCT of these models aren't designed for science, they are designed to produce silly GLOBAL AVERAGES for the purposes of IPCC conferences and media relations. Thus even KEY parameters like the atmos residency time of CO2, the "climate sensitivity" numbers, and all of the Earth's key REGIONAL thermal and climate components are "averaged out" instead of being nailed for completeness.. It's a clusterfuck of public relations instead of quantification and clarification.. 

And its ALL about CO2.. Except that we STILL DONT know much more SPECIFIC NUMBERS about the "carbon cycle" than we did in the 70s and 80s.. It's not about how the Climate works ---- that's for certain..


----------



## daveman (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Not when they're wrong, it's not.


----------



## daveman (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Odd...I was going to ask you the same thing.


----------



## daveman (Nov 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Only the models can't hindcast worth a damn.

Climate models aren?t good enough to hindcast, says new study | Watts Up With That?

Predictably, you will lose your shit over the source.

And that will, of course, be an admission that you can't refute what the cited study says.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


 

Anthony Watt?  really?  That title is a bit misleading, isn't it?  Of course it is, since the very first sentence makes the admission that a few models "were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years".  Next.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2013)

Watt, Monkton, and the other posiers are that only thing the dingbats have left. When the whole of the scientific establishment is stating there is a problem, kind of leaves them without any valid sources. But then, lack of validity or veracity in their arguements have never been a problem for these people.


----------



## daveman (Dec 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


You should have kept reading.
The results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China between 1961 and 2000, he says. Only half of the 21 analysed climate models analysed were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China. Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.​


----------



## daveman (Dec 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Watt, Monkton, and the other posiers are that only thing the dingbats have left. When the whole of the scientific establishment is stating there is a problem, kind of leaves them without any valid sources. But then, lack of validity or veracity in their arguements have never been a problem for these people.



Ummm...Watt didn't conduct the study I just cited.  It was Tinghai Ou from the University of Gothenburgs Department of Earth Sciences.

Your dismissal of Watt is meaningless.  Just like you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



This must be your favorite time of year then.  When all the fraud future seers come out and make 20 predictions for 2014.  And if ONE of them ends up correct -- That ensures they will get airtime NEXT year to make the 2015  predictions...


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 1, 2013)

Hindcasting is the single most important criteria for a model.  All models in widespread use have exhibited the ability to perform satisfactory hindcasts.  I am certain that they will all fail under certain conditions, but life's a bitch.  Models operated within their own, known constraints produce satisfactory data.

You know all that to be true.  Why do you try to argue otherwise?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 1, 2013)

Hindcasting for climate models driven primarily by CO2 ought NOT to work by definition.  Because the farther u go back, the less significance that parameter has to the climate. (At least the man caused part) OR you find that CO2 becomes a RESULT of temperature instead of a driver..   More immature science frow AGW..


----------



## daveman (Dec 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Hindcasting is the single most important criteria for a model.  All models in widespread use have exhibited the ability to perform satisfactory hindcasts.  I am certain that they will all fail under certain conditions, but life's a bitch.  Models operated within their own, known constraints produce satisfactory data.
> 
> You know all that to be true.  Why do you try to argue otherwise?


But it's NOT true.

New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are | Watts Up With That?

Selected sections of the entire paper, from the Hydrological Sciences Journal is available online here as HTML, and  as PDF ~1.3MB are given below:

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data

Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094  1110

Abstract



We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

Citation Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1094-1110.

--

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.​Why do you try to argue otherwise?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict.  And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them.  Moreover, the author seems to believe that models that were intended to represent broad global changes over the long-term should somehow be accepted for regional short-term "nationwide change studies?  Really?  Are you sure about that?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
You should put the bottle down before you fall down.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The BETTER way to improve to them is to stop pretending that the entire Earth is one Climate zone, learn the physical mechanisms for moving heat and changing weather, strengthen our knowledge of key variables, and to stop pretending that the most important element of Climate Change is man-made CO2..


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Jump from the Tilt-A-Whirl to the Scrambler.

Deal with it, you can't possibly account for all possible germane  inputs and cause-effect relationships.



Abraham3 said:


> One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature.  That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.


We're talking about de minimus  increase in CO2. Not even so much as a 1% change in the total ratio.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
No one is pretending that the Earth is a "one climate zone". That is a ridiculous accusation. That said, we do understand quite well that the solar system itself is divided into "zones", and that the one we are in constitutes the only Known habitable zone in our system, one we'd like to see continue to be viable for future species and future human generations. And so in order to better plan for the future in this global economy, but know the Earth's relation with the rest of the solar system, we need to understand it as a whole. That is one of the reasons why we study the Earth's climate system as a whole. But you knew that, right?

Man-made CO2 emissions cannot be ignored, however much you wish that were the case. Those emissions are among the few variables that directly affect our climate that we CAN CONTROL. Now, however apparent it is that you desire that we not control our own pollution, you aren't the only fucker who lives on this planet. We do concede, however, that you get 1 out of 6.5 billion votes on the matter. Congratulations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You can't be serious.. What does the IPCC with the "climate sensitivity" number that describes how the Planet responds to a thermal forcing function.. THey FUCKING AVERAGE IT in order to broadcast an official number.. ONE NUMBER.. Regardless of whether it's desert or rainforest or Arctic or Tropics or Summer or Winter.. Same with the silly juvenile emphasis on BREATHLESSLY promoting that stupid ass SINGLE NUMBER of "Mean Annual Global Surface Temperature" that tells you NOTHING about how the climate is responding to thermal stimulus.. Gimmeafuckingbreak with your "ridiculous accusations"... 




> Man-made CO2 emissions cannot be ignored, however much you wish that were the case.
> Those emissions are among the few variables that directly affect our climate that we CAN CONTROL. Now, however apparent it is that you desire that we not control our own pollution, you aren't the only fucker who lives on this planet. We do concede, however, that you get 1 out of 6.5 billion votes on the matter. Congratulations.



You certainly can't make the case that I've ever ignored pollution.. It is your crowd of mental midgets that makes it a priority to confuse and confound the 6.5 Billion "voters" of the difference between "carbon emissions" and CO2. And we can no more control the 700 GTON annual NATURAL CO2 exchange with our measly 30Gton than we can control the weather. The ocean uptake is more influenced by weather than it is by man's emissions of CO2. To pretend that CO2 has the same surface warming properties and ocean uptake at the poles as it does at the equator is a Public Relations stunt from the IPCC --- not what the science tells us...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 1, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Be careful now ... 

Look how well that's worked for Rep and Little Miss Bachmann. 

And, their fans.

If Rep Bachmann hadn't gotten caught with her hand in the cookie jar, they'd vote for her again. And, Little Missy Bachmann has been caught multiple times and he/she/it is still raking in the unethical dough.

All of which is further proof that vaccines cause mental retardation.


----------



## daveman (Dec 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You'll have to ask the real scientists who did the study, not the dumbass progs you get your cult talking points from.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
So you are saying that you don't know.  I could have told you that.  All you had to do was ask.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
I couldn't be more serious.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> What does the IPCC with the "climate sensitivity" number that describes how the Planet responds to a thermal forcing function.. THey FUCKING AVERAGE IT in order to broadcast an official number.. ONE NUMBER.. Regardless of whether it's desert or rainforest or Arctic or Tropics or Summer or Winter.. Same with the silly juvenile emphasis on BREATHLESSLY promoting that stupid ass SINGLE NUMBER of "Mean Annual Global Surface Temperature" that tells you NOTHING about how the climate is responding to thermal stimulus.. Gimmeafuckingbreak with your "ridiculous accusations"...


 
That is like saying that averaging the temperature in any region tells us nothing about the climatic response in that region over time. And that, my friend, is the asinine assertion.




> Man-made CO2 emissions cannot be ignored, however much you wish that were the case.
> Those emissions are among the few variables that directly affect our climate that we CAN CONTROL. Now, however apparent it is that you desire that we not control our own pollution, you aren't the only fucker who lives on this planet. We do concede, however, that you get 1 out of 6.5 billion votes on the matter. Congratulations.


 


			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> You certainly can't make the case that I've ever ignored pollution..


 
Yes I can. You are doing it right now.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> It is your crowd of mental midgets that makes it a priority to confuse and confound the 6.5 Billion "voters" of the difference between "carbon emissions" and CO2. And we can no more control the 700 GTON annual NATURAL CO2 exchange with our measly 30Gton than we can control the weather. The ocean uptake is more influenced by weather than it is by man's emissions of CO2. To pretend that CO2 has the same surface warming properties and ocean uptake at the poles as it does at the equator is a Public Relations stunt from the IPCC --- not what the science tells us...


 
To ignore the facts for political expediency as you do is the hallmark of a crackpot. Congratulations. The fact is that CO2 emissions affect the pole regions far more than it does anywhere else. That you believe that our 30gtons of CO2 emissions released every year is a "measly" amount is as ignorant is it gets. That's what the science tells us.


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Hindcasting is the single most important criteria for a model.  All models in widespread use have exhibited the ability to perform satisfactory hindcasts.  I am certain that they will all fail under certain conditions, but life's a bitch.  Models operated within their own, known constraints produce satisfactory data.
> 
> You know all that to be true.  Why do you try to argue otherwise?









Post a link to one that has please.  Just one will be fine.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 1, 2013)

CESM | Community Earth System Model

climateprediction.net | The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

EdGCM

CCCma - Welcome

CM2.X Coupled Climate Models

UVic Climate Modelling Group

ETH Climate Science Visuals?s Videos on Vimeo

Climate in Earth History


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

CO2 a pollutant? 

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

elektra said:


> CO2 a pollutant?


 
Yes.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.


 
Strawman argument.  It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CESM | Community Earth System Model
> 
> climateprediction.net | The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century
> 
> ...








Not one of those has ever completed a successful hindcast idiot.  Posting a list of failed computer models is amusing but who are you trying to bullshit.


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 a pollutant?
> ...








Of course it is.  CO2 is THE fundamental building block of life on this planet.  Not just a little life...ALL life.  If you were to lower the atmospheric concentration to 200 ppm life would die.  C'mon olfraud I thought you had more brains than that.  Oh and you might as well drop the oroman sock..   We know who you are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 a pollutant?
> ...



oh man you are a stellar debater, you knocked that flamer out of the ball  park, but would you kindly explain what a straw man is? Also did you know that without that thing that you call a pollutant plant life would not have food?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CESM | Community Earth System Model
> 
> climateprediction.net | The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century
> 
> ...



Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 a pollutant?
> ...



Strawman argument? I was not debating, just pointing out the facts, fact being if you must use coal, oil, fossil fuels to make your product, you can not call yourself Green. Take the idea that Solar Power is infinite, free, easy to produce, Solar Power is extremely expensive, takes lots of dollars, each dollar spent comes with its own carbon footprint, which is completely ignored. More money means much more pollution. Further we are using more money to produce less energy, seems that Solar Power is counter productive.

Seems pretty stupid to not take into consideration that the fossil energy used to produce and manufacture "Clean Green Energy" could used directly by consumers.

Its like making a copy of a copy of a copy, each time it takes more work, more energy, and the final product is weaker, not as good as the original.

We take fossil energy to make Solar Panels that will in turn make energy and we are to believe this saves energy? Pure nonsense. We are suppose to ignore all the CO2 wasted making Solar Panels? Somehow by converting Fossil fuels into Solar Panels and then waiting for the Sun to come up saves energy?

Misuse of words, obfuscating facts, outright lies, fraud, all to convince Americans that CO2 is a pollutant and Green Energy does not stink.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
Actually, you were asking a question but forgot to add the question mark at the end. But your question assumes that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is incorrect.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> ...just pointing out the facts, fact being if you must use coal, oil, fossil fuels to make your product, you can not call yourself Green.


 
While it is true that the manufacturing process requires energy, it doesn't not require that energy derived from carbon be that source.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Take the idea that Solar Power is infinite, free, easy to produce, Solar Power is extremely expensive, takes lots of dollars, each dollar spent comes with its own carbon footprint, which is completely ignored.


 
On the contrary, solar power have never been less expensive, and will only become cheaper as more facilities come online.  Moreover, it will ALWAYS be less polluting than any other source, and that is something you apparently choose to ignore.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> More money means much more pollution. Further we are using more money to produce less energy, seems that Solar Power is counter productive.


 
Not really.  The energy source is free, and doesn't pollute.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Seems pretty stupid to not take into consideration that the fossil energy used to produce and manufacture "Clean Green Energy" could used directly by consumers.


 
Using coal and oil as an energy source, though convenient, has always be extremely wasteful and polluting.  There are far better uses of these products than energy production.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> We take fossil energy to make Solar Panels that will in turn make energy and we are to believe this saves energy? Pure nonsense.


 
What is pure nonsense, and stupid is the notion that we must use fossil fuel-derived energy to make solar panels.  The energy can come from any source, such as hydroelectric, wind, or even - wait for it - solar panels.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> We are suppose to ignore all the CO2 wasted making Solar Panels?


 
What you willfully ignore is the fact that solar panel energy production produces little, if any, CO2 emissions, and can be made virtually CO2 - free by taking carbon energy completely out of the production cycle.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Misuse of words, obfuscating facts, outright lies, fraud, all to convince Americans that CO2 is a pollutant and Green Energy does not stink.


 
You are confusing what we do with what you are doing.  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I did not forget a question mark, nowhere is it required that a question mark be utilized while writing a question, if that is what you think it is easy to see how you became confused. A question can be a statement, 

You state we can use any source including solar power to make solar panels yet we do not, Solar Power just does not create the sustainable energy at a great enough level. That simple fact is admitted by the scientists and producers of Solar Energy, I guess nobody got around to cut/pasting for you to understand.

Further, it not only takes Fossil fuel energy but it takes chemicals that only come from Petroleum, how do you propose deriving chemicals from Solar Panels? It can not be done. 

Seriously, your dim-witted attack on me simply proves you have zero facts to support your belief.


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

Solar Panel Production creates more CO2 than using Coal to directly to produce electricity, to manufacture a Solar Panel first you need a coal plant to provide the massive amount of energy it takes to make Solar Panels, than you need cars and trucks and ships to transport the Solar Panels to the site, than you must start building the worlds largest in physical size Solar Electrical Power plant that produces just a tiny fraction of the electricity of a conventional electrical plant that is 10,000 times smaller. 

How is it in the world of Green Energy the worlds largest in physical size solar plant can be stated that it is somehow using less natural resources than a conventional electrical power plant that is a fraction in size.

It is astonishing to think that people can ignore so much to make such absurd claims. But hell, you read it in the newspaper so it has to be true, right?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 2, 2013)

elektra said:


> Solar Panel Production creates more CO2 than using Coal to directly to produce electricity, to manufacture a Solar Panel first you need a coal plant to provide the massive amount of energy it takes to make Solar Panels, than you need cars and trucks and ships to transport the Solar Panels to the site, than you must start building the worlds largest in physical size Solar Electrical Power plant that produces just a tiny fraction of the electricity of a conventional electrical plant that is 10,000 times smaller.
> 
> How is it in the world of Green Energy the worlds largest in physical size solar plant can be stated that it is somehow using less natural resources than a conventional electrical power plant that is a fraction in size.
> 
> It is astonishing to think that people can ignore so much to make such absurd claims. But hell, you read it in the newspaper so it has to be true, right?



It is astonishing.   How about a link to your reference?  I'm curious what fixed quantity of electricity they think comes out of a solar panel.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


And neither do you know.  Nor will you be digging deeper into the study, because it's heresy.  

Run along back to your echo chambers for comfort now.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 2, 2013)

It is amazing to see how the AGW crowd just does not get it.

Plastics are made from petroleum.
Solar Cells are made from petroleum.
Both solar and Wind power can not create the energy needs to run the manufacturing sector.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. 

James Hanson is a very Biased scientist and uses voodoo science for activism.


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar Panel Production creates more CO2 than using Coal to directly to produce electricity, to manufacture a Solar Panel first you need a coal plant to provide the massive amount of energy it takes to make Solar Panels, than you need cars and trucks and ships to transport the Solar Panels to the site, than you must start building the worlds largest in physical size Solar Electrical Power plant that produces just a tiny fraction of the electricity of a conventional electrical plant that is 10,000 times smaller.
> ...



Solar Panel manufacture is pretty complicated, one has to research CVD reactors.

Chemical Vapor Deposition



> An inert gas such as hydrogen is bubbled through the liquid and by calculating the vapor pressure of the reactant and monitoring the flow rate of the hydro



So Hydrogen is used to make Solar Panels, who would of thought, and all our industrial Hydrogen gas comes from Petroleum production/natural gas. 

Solar Panels can not be made without first using Fossil Energy, either for the electricity required in the process or for the gases required in CVD reactors. 

Hydrogen gas is not accounted for when determining if and when a Solar Panel pays back the energy required to make said Solar Panel.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 2, 2013)

elektra said:


> CO2 a pollutant?
> 
> Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.


Perhaps because  they would  have to then begin being honest about the rest of their rather communistic political agenda?

Just a guess.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 2, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Anyone stupid enough to post this nonsense is stupid enough to believe in made made global warming.


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



It is not the Carbon Dioxide that will kill you, its the lack of Oxygen.

It amazing how people can live in an atmosphere that lacks intelligence.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 2, 2013)

elektra said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...



Awesome!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2013)

Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress

&#8220;There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.&#8221; That&#8217;s from a 2010 special issue on climate change and biodiversity from the UK&#8217;s Royal Society.
In 2011, a Nature Geoscience study found humans are spewing carbon into the atmosphere 10 times faster now than 56 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a time of 10°F warming and mass extinction.
An even more ancient extinction is the subject of a new study in Science (subs. req&#8217;d), with the tongue-twister title, &#8220;Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links the End-Triassic Extinction with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province.&#8221;
As the MIT News release puts it:
Some 200 million years ago, an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming that killed off 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species on Earth.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 2, 2013)

ThinkProgress.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2013)

http://www.geobiology.net.cn/chaen/photo/2012-11-21/20121121161710991099.pdf

The smoking gun revealing the secrets of the end-Permian mass mortality is a unique 1-2-m-thick layer consisting of 5&#8211;20- cm-long crystals of calcite that occurs precisely at the Permian&#8211;Triassic boundary (PTB) in Iran, Armenia, Turkey, and China. This layer is interpreted as synsedimentary, abiotic, seafloor cement indicative of precipitation from a highly carbonate supersaturated seawater. Its d13C composition (d13C=0xPDB) is 4xto 5xPDB lower than the typical Upper Permian values (4xto 5xPDB), suggesting the involvement of massive amounts of gas hydrate CH4 (d13C=60xPDB). The temporal coincidence of the cement layer with the PTB suggests that the process that promoted seafloor cementation was also responsible for the biological crisis. A cementation model is developed based on accumulation&#8211;dissociation cycle of gas hydrates which also explains the mass extinction at the PTB.

The Upper Permian accumulation period of gas hydrates ended abruptly adjacent to the PTB and the dissociation event began releasing 3.2 to 4.71018 g CH4 into the ocean. Oxidation of CH4 in the water column created a seawater that was charged with CO2 (an oceanic acid bath) and had lower than normal O2 content (but not anoxic). This oceanic acid bath first dissolved suspended fine-grained carbonate particles and small calcareous organisms, followed by extensive dissolution of platform carbonates raising Ca2 + and HCO3  concentrations of seawater. When the release of CH4 declined, the acid-bath ocean became a soda ocean precipitating massive amount of seafloor cements observed
globally at the PTB.

The study suggests that prior to cement precipitation, the PTB ocean was charged with CO2, warm, had low oxygen, high Ca2 +, and high HCO3  concentrations. These conditions collectively created stressful conditions causing the marine mass mortality. The leakage of CH4 to the atmosphere produced a super-hot climate resulting in the biological devastation on land. The proposed kill mechanism is developed on the basis of the physical clue&#8212;the cement layer&#8212;left behind by the killing process&#8212;the change in ocean chemistry.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2013)

The end?Permian mass extinction: A rapid volcanic CO2 and CH4?climatic catastrophe - Chemical Geology - Tom 322-323, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda

Abstrakty
EN
The end of the Permian was a time of crisis that culminated in the Earth's greatest mass extinction. There is much speculation as to the cause for this catastrophe. Here we provide a full suite of high-resolution and coeval geochemical results (trace and rare earth elements, carbon, oxygen, strontium and clumped isotopes) reflecting ambient seawater chemistry and water quality parameters leading up to the end&#8208;Permian crisis. Preserved brachiopod low-Mg calcite-based seawater chemistry, supplemented by data from various localities, documents a sequence of interrelated primary events such as coeval flows of Siberian Trap continental flood basalts and emission of carbon dioxide leading to warm and extreme Greenhouse conditions with sea surface temperatures (SST) of ~36°C for the Late Permian. Although anoxia has been advanced as a cause for the mass extinction, most biotic and geochemical evidence suggest that it was briefly relevant during the early phase of the event and only in areas of upwelling, but not a general cause. Instead, we suggest that renewed and increased end&#8208;Permian Siberian Trap volcanic activity, about 2000years prior to the extinction event, released massive amounts of carbon dioxide and coupled with thermogenic methane emissions triggered extreme global warming and increased continental weathering. Eventually, these rapidly discharged greenhouse gas emissions, less than 1000years before the event, ushered in a global Hothouse period leading to extreme tropical SSTs of ~39°C and higher. Based on these sea surface temperatures, atmospheric CO 2 concentrations were about 1400ppmv and 3000ppmv for the Late and end&#8208;Permian, respectively. Leading up to the mass extinction, there was a brief interruption of the global warming trend when SST dropped, concurrent with a slight, but significant recovery in biodiversity in the western Tethys. It is possible that emission of volcanic sulfate aerosols resulted in brief cooling just after the onset of intensified warming during the end of the Permian. After aerosol deposition, global warming resumed and the biotic decline proceeded, and was accompanied by suboxia, in places of the surface ocean which culminated in the greatest mass extinction in Earth history


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> ThinkProgress.



The article quoated real scientific sources, unlike the conservative publications that quote frauds like Monkton and Watts.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 2, 2013)

Knowing how ThinkProgress rolls, the linked piece more than probably cherry picks, to peddle its clearly obvious socialist politics.

You may now resume your Spamming marathon.


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress
> 
> &#8220;There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.&#8221; That&#8217;s from a 2010 special issue on climate change and biodiversity from the UK&#8217;s Royal Society.
> In 2011, a Nature Geoscience study found humans are spewing carbon into the atmosphere 10 times faster now than 56 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a time of 10°F warming and mass extinction.
> ...








And not one shred of physical evidence to support that theory.  Plenty to show that cold did it.  But none to show that CO2 had a damned thing to do with it.  Think Progress.  What a farce.  

It is illustrative that you would link to a NAZI supporting group to push your climate BS though.  Progressives, like the NAZI's they supported, are all about the control of people......usually by killing them.  They're real easy to control then...


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > ThinkProgress.
> ...







Bullshit.  they source "studies" that are exclusively generated by computer models.  That's not science, that's science fiction.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 2, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



A very dumb "argument."  Crystal clean clear pure water is a pollutant by that "logic," since if you breathe it you will die.

Or, maybe you'll say it isn't a "gas," as we don't breathe water, we drink it.  Ok.  Then just drink it and drink it and drink it.  Eventually, you will die. 

Too much of a good thing.

CO2 is a completely natural and VERY necessary atmospheric gas.  But no, too much of it can injure us.

So, smileydon's "suggestion" remains nothing but stupid.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
I see you failed grammar in school.  Be that as it may, you are right about one thing - it wasn't a real question.  It was a meaningless rhetorical question that didn't really require a response.  I just thought I would point that out.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> You state we can use any source including solar power to make solar panels yet we do not,


 
Well, dear, considering that the industry is still very young, I'd say stay tuned.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Solar Power just does not create the sustainable energy at a great enough level. That simple fact is admitted by the scientists and producers of Solar Energy, I guess nobody got around to cut/pasting for you to understand.


 
No one is denying that it takes a mix of energy sources to power an efficient energy grid (no one but the pro-carbon folk, that is).


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 a pollutant?
> ...


 
So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot?  Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.


----------



## peach174 (Dec 2, 2013)

I think too many are confusing Carbon Dioxide (harmless) not a pollutant or poisonous with Carbon Monoxide which is poisonous and deadly.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 2, 2013)

peach174 said:


> I think too many are confusing Carbon Dioxide (harmless) not a pollutant or poisonous with Carbon Monoxide which is poisonous and deadly.


Don't you believe it.

What they are doing can be found in the pages of "1984" and "Animal Farm".


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> ...


Here's the trick.

Humans aren't dumping tons of oxygen into the environment.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



Plants are.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


 
Really?  You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."



			
				helenahandbasket said:
			
		

> And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.


 
Sorry, but you are wrong.


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...







There is a direct correlation between CO2 production and plant production of O2.  The more CO2, the more O2.


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...











It's the other way around olfraud.  You can't present any measurable impact that CO2 has on the environment that is negative.  We can present thousands of years of research that says CO2 is a positive influence on the environment.

You lose.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No, I'm not wrong. CO2 concentrations aren't anywhere near toxic and are in no imminent threat of becoming so.

If the green energy crowd is throwing in with the global warming hoaxers, then they deserved to be identified as the communistic people that they are.

And it doesn't have to be a plot. The greenies can just be naively falling in with the wrong crowd. There's a lot of that in the envirowhack movement.

Now, if they want to reverse course, exhibit some marketing/salesmanship skills and appeal to what people want, rather than taking the route of government grants, subsidies and compulsion, they may well change that perception.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 2, 2013)

Water vapor is a pollutant if CO2 is a pollutant.. YES -- it's playing with the definition of pollutant..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 2, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...



WHat?? Appeal to reason and become environmentalists again? 
You've seen them in this forum.. They believe all of society moves on Government edict.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









That's GREAT!  Klink and his cohorts are the PERFECT visual for you and your sock puppets!  I couldn't have done better!  Thank you!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2013)

Without salt in your diet, you will get sick and die. So, since salt is neccessary, just go ahead and eat a pint of it. Cannot do you any harm, it is neccessary, you know.

When the concentration of CO2 is low enough, you get snowball Earth. When it is quite high, you get tropics at the poles. And when it changes rapidly, you get periods of extinction. That is geological history. 

Water only stays in the atmosphere for ten days or less. Remove all of it, and the oceans immediatly would evaportate enough to put the vapor back into the atmosphere in a few days. Double the amount, and it would rain out in a matter of days. But CO2 is there for much longer;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm...d=0&subtop=342&lv=list.listByChapter&r=239797

Once emitted, gases remain in the atmosphere for varying amounts of time. Very &#8220;short-lived&#8221; compounds, such as particulate matter (PM), remain airborne on average for only hours or days. CH4 also has a relatively short average lifetime, though much longer than PM, remaining in the atmosphere for roughly 12 years. The half-life of CO 2 emissions is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001), but about a quarter of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere after hundreds of years and about one-tenth for hundreds of thousands of years (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Archer et al., 1998). Finally, many of the synthetic gases such as halocarbons (or gases that contain the halogens chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine) are extremely long-lived, remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. When emissions&#8212;from the U.S. (the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator) as well as other countries&#8212;remain in the atmosphere over long periods, they accumulate and are measured as atmospheric concentrations. U.S. GHG emissions from 1890 to 2000 are estimated to have contributed about one-fifth of the increase in global GHG concentrations (den Elzen et al., 2005).


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > ThinkProgress.
> ...



You  know Watts posts peer-reviewed science, right?

Ahhh, but it's not the RIGHT peers, so it's not really science.  Is that what you're using instead of rational thought?


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot?  Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.



No, they're saying "green energy" is, for the most part, a backwards step to the 15th Century and won't meet the energy needs of our society in the 21st Century.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress
> ...



People in mass graves don't kick up a fuss about anything.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.
> ...


 
Right, because we all know that every Monk who lived in the 15th century had access to solar energy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And if they did -- they'd still be in the Dark Ages 18 hrs a day..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Without salt in your diet, you will get sick and die. So, since salt is neccessary, just go ahead and eat a pint of it. Cannot do you any harm, it is neccessary, you know.
> 
> When the concentration of CO2 is low enough, you get snowball Earth. When it is quite high, you get tropics at the poles. And when it changes rapidly, you get periods of extinction. That is geological history.
> 
> ...



OMG GoldiRocks.. You make me laugh so much.. 



> The half-life of CO 2 emissions *is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001*), but about a quarter of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere after hundreds of years and about one-tenth for hundreds of thousands of years (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Archer et al., 1998).



There's that adorable certainty and PRECISION we expect from AGW science and IPCC.. 
30 Yrs into this bummer of a circus and we have a number between 5 and 200 years.. 

Of course that was back in 2000 or so --- and NOW the evidence is much closer to the 5 than the 200 ever was.. Lets' call it 10 ---- OK Dokey? Or MAYBE --- you could get the clown college to hurry up and refine this for us ---- SO THAT THEIR MODELS HAVE A PRAYER of working before HealthCare.Gov does??? 

No pressure dude.. The entire f'ing planet is about to vaporize, but don't let that keep you from RETAINING that uncertainty just for Public Relations value...


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Without salt in your diet, you will get sick and die. So, since salt is neccessary, just go ahead and eat a pint of it. Cannot do you any harm, it is neccessary, you know.
> 
> When the concentration of CO2 is low enough, you get snowball Earth. When it is quite high, you get tropics at the poles. And when it changes rapidly, you get periods of extinction. That is geological history.
> 
> ...










Comparing apples with elephants again I see.  Or why don't we use something even more appropriate as regards quantities, you're comparing an anthill vs Mt Everest.


----------



## elektra (Dec 2, 2013)

'Windmills create millions of tons of CO2, more or as much as any other industry. Facing the truth is impossible for Green Energy advocates


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 2, 2013)

Windmills make ZERO co2 emissions, moron.

Maybe when we're making them,. Explain to me how wind Turing a turbine = co2. 

Do you have data backing up your case? Anti-science republican.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Windmills make ZERO co2 emissions, moron.
> 
> Maybe when we're making them,. Explain to me how wind Turing a turbine = co2.
> 
> Do you have data backing up your case? Anti-science republican.



Wind Turbines make "ZERO", or "Maybe"? 

I am a moron yet in two sentences you go from "ZERO" to "Maybe". I am Anti-science when you deny CO2 emissions of Wind Farms when the answer is seconds away with an easy Google search.

The Sweet Winds of Change | Job Stories | Putzmeister Concrete Placing Equipment



> A &#8220;Sweet&#8221; Market
> Action, relying on their Putzmeister BSF 32-meter truck-mounted boom pump, recently placed more than 26,500 cubic yards of a &#8220;hot&#8221; and challenging concrete mix for a wind farm near Sweetwater, Texas.



Concrete, go figure you need Concrete which is made from Cement, and last time I heard the Cement Industry was the largest single source for CO2 emissions. Consider one ton of Concrete uses 420 tons of coal, emitting over a ton of CO2 per ton of Concrete.

Seems 26,500 cubic yards of Concrete will use over 10,600,000 tons of Coal. Wow, a ton of CO2 per ton of Concrete, that is a lot of CO2, a lot more than Matthew's "Zero" figure. 

Emissions from the Cement Industry ? State of the Planet



> Cement manufacturing is highly energy &#8211; and &#8211; emissions intensive because of the extreme heat required to produce it.  Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and generates nearly a ton of CO2. Given its high emissions and critical importance to society, cement is an obvious place to look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



That is just one tiny wind farm, how about;

Ohio's First Large-Scale Wind Farm Uses Lafarge Cement for Turbine Concrete Foundations



> Lafarge provided Type I portland cement from its Paulding plant to Irving Concrete of Ohio, which built a strategically located portable ready-mix batch plant to produce approximately 122,500 cubic yards of concrete for the project. The construction of 15- to 20-foot-deep concrete foundations to support all of the 328-foot-high towers with 2-MW turbines required 30,000 tons of cement



A cubic yard of Concrete weighs about two tons, that means this one Wind Farm produced 60,000 tons of CO2! 

That's just the CO2 emitted from the Concrete used for the installation, that does not count the Cement Trucks, the Cranes, the workers private vehicles and company vehicles. 

That is 60,000 tons of CO2 without even considering manufacturing. 

But, to Matthew and those who advocate the false promise and fraud of "Green Energy", they are oblivious to the Science of their ideals and beliefs about "Green Energy". To Matthew and the other Advocates they will simply ignore the facts presented, they simply are mindlessly following beliefs based on stereotypes.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2013)

So is paving roads or  
Building buildings and/or bridges

Should be looked down on??? I am fighting for a long term energy source that will out last the fossil fuels. So the next time we build a concrete coal plant = co2. Of course it does...I am for infrastructure.

We're not going to be ready when we do lose these fuel sources.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2013)

You forget that my message on this board is infrastructure, science, education and r@d. I am mostly fighting against such shit as in china(oil spills and mineblow outs) and for a long term solution to run our own civilization on. I quite honestly feel that it isn't oil, coal and natural gas in the long term.

How is that anti-science??? The truth is co2 I honestly don't consider a pollute but just a gas that reflects a little more energy back towards the surface. Certainly doesn't kill people like coal smog and isn't infite like solar, wind or hydro.

I strongly feel that we need to go to a 1/3rd mixture of sources that make sure we're ready....Nuclear, hydro, hydro-thermal, solar, wind, wave, etc.

I WANT 100 more GW of Nuclear for America. Build 20x5 gw nuclear plants.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

Matthew said:


> You forget that my message on this board is infrastructure, science, education and r@d. I am mostly fighting against such shit as in china(oil spills and mineblow outs) and for a long term solution to run our own civilization on. I quite honestly feel that it isn't oil, coal and natural gas in the long term.
> 
> How is that anti-science??? The truth is co2 I honestly don't consider a pollute but just a gas that reflects a little more energy back towards the surface. Certainly doesn't kill people like coal smog and isn't infite like solar, wind or hydro.
> 
> ...



Solar and Wind is not infinite, it must be collected using a Solar Panel or Wind Turbine that has a finite lifespan. Further the amount of land suitable for these technologies is also finite. Further, short term or long term, you need Oil, Gas, Coal, HydroCarbons to build and maintain Green Energy, and at that, you must increase the use of Hydro Carbons to build more Green Energy Plants.

Use more raw materials and natural resources to produce less electricity is just plain nonsense. 

Green Energy Advocates claim to embrace science but to do so Green Energy Advocates ignore reality.


----------



## manonfire (Dec 3, 2013)

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

manonfire said:


> Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance



The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not. 

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies. 

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> manonfire said:
> 
> 
> > Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance
> ...


 
The sun has about 5 billion years of fuel.  Yeah, it's not infinite, but it will out live us all.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > manonfire said:
> ...



Are you claiming we can put an infinite amount of Solar Panels up? Land is finite, hence the use of Solar Power is finite. 

Peak Solar, when there is no more land or sea to put Solar Panels on, I bet Peak Solar occurs before Peak Oil.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 3, 2013)

Are you actually this dense?  When someone complains about the GHG emissions of a coal plant,does the complaint concern the hydrocarbons burned in the production of the turbines and boilers and steam lines or the CO2 released making all the concrete in the foundation?  No, because those amounts are TRIVIAL compared to the GHG's that will be produced by the combustion of fuel during the plant's lifetime.

Your calculations - or the calculations someone is trying to feed you - are absurdly incorrect.  The CO2 produced in the manufacture of a solar or wind farm (or a coal-fired plant) is a singular event.  The GHG per KWH-produced for a coal plant continuously rises as long as the plant exists.  For wind and solar facilities, it continuously falls.

Put on your thinking cap before making such claims.  They are nonsense.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
Obviously, you aren't the brightest bulb in the lamp.  Why would we ever need to put up an infinite amount of solar panels to meet our needs?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

For those who say that climate models cannot predict past events:

New generation of climate models capable of simulating abrupt climate change



> Scientists have, for the first time, demonstrated that climate models are able to simulate past abrupt changes in the Earth's climate - giving more confidence in predictions of future global climate change.
> 
> The climate model investigated in the study is the EC-Earth model, developed by a consortium of European countries together with the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts in Reading.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> manonfire said:
> 
> 
> > Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance
> ...



Silly ass, when we built the first cars, we used horse drawn wagons to deliver the parts. Possibly the analogy is too subtle for you?


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Are you actually this dense?  When someone complains about the GHG emissions of a coal plant,does the complaint concern the hydrocarbons burned in the production of the turbines and boilers and steam lines or the CO2 released making all the concrete in the foundation?  No, because those amounts are TRIVIAL compared to the GHG's that will be produced by the combustion of fuel during the plant's lifetime.
> 
> Your calculations - or the calculations someone is trying to feed you - are absurdly incorrect.  The CO2 produced in the manufacture of a solar or wind farm (or a coal-fired plant) is a singular event.  The GHG per KWH-produced for a coal plant continuously rises as long as the plant exists.  For wind and solar facilities, it continuously falls.
> 
> Put on your thinking cap before making such claims.  They are nonsense.



Your post is the only thing here that is nonsense, I provided no calculation, I simply provided the amount of CO2 in thousands of tons released by one single Wind Farm. I provided a fact, an amount. 

Either CO2 is significant or its not significant, you can not have it both ways. Thousands of tons of CO2 per wind turbine is significant.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And you obviously need a "bright bulb" right in your eyes to understand a simple post, I never stated we needed but infinite amount of solar panels.

Peak Solar, when we run out of our "finite" resources to place Solar Panels. 

Peak Solar also occurs when we run out of Hydrocarbons which are used at increased rate to produce Solar Panels. Peak Solar occurs at the same time as Peak Oil, cannot produce nor maintain Solar Panels without Oil.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > manonfire said:
> ...



I pretty much skip over the most ridiculous posts, such as yours, hence you will not see me responding to  many of your posts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2013)

We used a million tons of coal in coal fired generation plants in 2012. That is 3.7 million tons of CO2 produced just in the burning of coal, not even counting the CO2 produced in the building of the generating plants. 

See how that works? If you want to play numbers games, you damned well better understand when the numbers are against you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



You pretty much skip over anything involving logic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Silly ass. Did we ever run out of horses to bring the parts to the auto assembly plants? God, you people just get fucking dumber by the day.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually, nobody is dumber than the person who believes in the 1920's horses were being used to deliver the materials to the car factories, they used Steam Trains and Trucks. 

We never used horses to deliver significant amounts of anything to Auto Manufacturing Plants let alone more modern Auto Assembly Plants.

Logic? is that what your using, what a CROCK.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
No, what you suggested was they we were claiming such a thing. Obviously we weren't, but that didn't stop you from coming to an erroneous conclusion.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> ]Peak Solar, when we run out of our "finite" resources to place Solar Panels.


 
Exactly when do you suppose that will happen? Next year? In ten years? 100 years? 1,000? 1 million? When?



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Peak Solar also occurs when we run out of Hydrocarbons which are used at increased rate to produce Solar Panels. Peak Solar occurs at the same time as Peak Oil, cannot produce nor maintain Solar Panels without Oil.


 
Except, as I've already pointed out, any energy source can be used to produce solar panels, even solar energy. And dear, the bulk of current solar panels are made out of silica, and rare Earth metals, not hydrocarbons.


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are you TRULY that stupid?  Using the sun is even older than wind power.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 3, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Here's the trick.
> 
> Humans aren't dumping tons of oxygen into the environment.



True.  Plants do that.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > manonfire said:
> ...









olfraud does it again.   Intentionally ignores the fact that it takes fossil fuel to PRODUCE the solar panels and windmills.  What a farce you are.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> For those who say that climate models cannot predict past events:
> 
> New generation of climate models capable of simulating abrupt climate change
> 
> ...









  What an asshat.  A computer model can CREATE anything you want it to you stupid ass.  What they can't do is re-create the weather that occurred YESTERDAY.  With all the variables known!  They are built with a bias which makes them USELESS.

And you claim to be a scientist


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes, they did.  That's why they changed to these...  Why am I totally unsurprised that you are still stuck in the horse and buggy days.  Science and technology have moved on....way on from those horse manure laden days olfraud.  Do try and keep up.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...








Yes, he is.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > For those who say that climate models cannot predict past events:
> ...


 
That is a hilarious assertion since you numbskulls have been arguing for days that the models could NOT accurately recreate past climate events. And when we show that they can, your response is 'oh well, you can get them to do anything'.  Good god man.  Did you leave your brain at the door, or what?  Have you ever, even once, worked with a scientific model?  Ever?  I doubt it.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...


 

So you are comparing this:







With this?






O-M-G!


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You pointed out? Any energy source, you are really missing the big picture, you still need hydrogen, petrochemicals, things that only come from oil. Further, a CVD reactor needs a constant source of power, they can not even risk a chance of fluctuation in power. Solar does not provide a stable source of energy. Not one place in the world is Solar being used to supply heavy industry, yet in your imagination that does not matter, you simply believe it can.

Everything being posted consistently refers to homes, not heavy industry.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> manonfire said:
> 
> 
> > Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance
> ...





orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I never suggested what you claim, and I am far from erroneous, further, go back and quote every post having to do this, so we can see where you picked up in the middle and got lost.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
Nearly all electrical use in the U.S. ultimately comes from the grid, particularly in the industrial sector.  The more solar and wind power comes online, the less coal, oil, and natural gas has to be combusted. Japan has already hit the 10GW generation from solar technology.  So do tell me what company making solar components needs that much capacity?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > manonfire said:
> ...


 
Oh really? You never asked this question?



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> Are you claiming we can put an *infinite amount* of Solar Panels up?


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








it didn't recreate anything.  It CREATED a storm.  Big deal.  There are storms all the time, anyone can model a storm.  You really don't get it do you.


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




That is truly a shame.


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I realize that you have limited intelligence, but even you should understand what is being said.


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



That is really good question, given all the times "infinite" is used to describe Solar, so as it stands we are in agreement, you understand there is a finite limit to Solar Energy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Us "brainless ones" are just not putting a lot of stock into CO2 centered Climate Models by simply looking at the output of any one of them.. Not when the IPCC is still claiming the 1/2 life residency of CO2 is somewhere between 5 years and 200 years.. Tuning a model thru that range of JUST ONE CRITICAL VARIABLE can (as WestWall said) --- give you any result you want. And if your "job" is just to match a SINGLE HINDCAST record --- you will find the tuning you require.. 

Shame that after the "TUNING" of a variable like CO2 residency time, that Climate Science DOESN'T SEEM TO LEARN to DECREASE it's error bars on that variable from experience with the models.. 

Us "brainless" just have enough experience with models to know enough to BE skeptical. And pick up on some clues that these models are NOT precise or accurate..


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am sorry that you remain wrong.

CO2 is *not* a pollutant in the almost insignificant amounts being "pumped" into the ecosystem by us humans.  And not one bit of the AGW Faither belief system has EVER established that humans have any capacity to alter the climate of mother Earth.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


 
If you believe that, then your moniker "liability reincarnate" fits you to a tee. Congratulations. You people confuse pollutants with toxic emissions. Not all pollutants are toxic at the levels they are emitted. The fact that they negatively impact the human and natural environment makes them pollutants. The fact that, like many other pollutants, they accumulate in the environment, makes them pollutants.  Look, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, get over it.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
But then, it is quite clear that you haven't even read the paper (gee, since it hasn't been published yet, I wonder why that is?), much less have any experience with scientific models, to make any of the above conclusions is the height of dishonesty.  I'm sure your mother is proud.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I used to BE Liability.  Now I am but Ilar.

You are easily confused and massively misled.

I have not confused pollutants with toxins at all.

A lot of water vapor can impact the weather, too.  It's still not a pollutant.

Excess oxygen can lead to forest fires and so forth.  STILL not a pollutant.

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either.

But hurry back to baselessly repeat your false premise.  Because that should REALLY help further your 'argument.'  LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If all you got is bringing my mother into this --- we could cool your jets with a BANNED next to your name..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


 
But then, water vapor has a very short residency in the atmosphere.  Moreover, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is also dependent on the concentrations of both aerosols and GHGs that reside in the atmosphere, both of which have a human component, components we can control.



			
				Ilar said:
			
		

> Excess oxygen can lead to forest fires and so forth. STILL not a pollutant, you twit.


 
Actually, there is a limit to which our global biosphere can sustain high levels of oxygen before serious damage occurs. Excess oxygen not only is damaging to the forests, it is also damaging to the oceans, and to vital anaerobic processes that break down organic compounds. Yes, dude, too much of a good thing is also a pollutant.



			
				Ilar said:
			
		

> And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either, yo twit.


 
Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
Go for it.  Be sure to point out where you referred to me as "brainless one", and where Ilar referred to me as a "Twit".  Call me what you will, it bothers me not.  Just don't whine when someone returns the favor, you big baby.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain:  to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific.  You merely propound your faith.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No Sir.. I was referring to myself and the other skeptics as "the brainless ones".. Picked up that reference from another poster.. Now who originally brought BRAINLESS into the convo.. Hmmmmmmmmm??


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...


 
We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started.  Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth.  Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth.  Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small.  Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts.  Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
Who brought "brainless one" into *our* conversation?  You did.  Next.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't care what the atmos residency of water vapor is.  Man's LAND USE and industries provide a NEW and INCREASING burden of water vapor into the atmos.. Build a road or a parking lot and you've POLLUTED.. Because you've increased the atmos H20 vapor content.  Insist on farming irrigation? You've polluted because you've provided a NEW steady supply of GHGas... 


You don't even KNOW what the atmos residency of CO2 really is..


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




The sky is falling!

If it were not for those prehistoric SUV's, damn it, we'd never have had all those Ice Ages.

Obviously.

This completes the AGW Faithers' course on Global Warmering/Coolering.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power.. 

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC. 

*I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen.* But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC.. 

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions..  For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


 
Right.  That's why the Australian continent is 90% dry as a bone.  That's why there is a long-term drought with no end in sight in the Western U.S.  That is why the Gobi desert is growing by leaps and bounds.  Because we are putting an "increasing water burden on the atmosphere".  Perhaps you should restate your bullshite argument.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> Build a road or a parking lot and you've POLLUTED.. Because you've increased the atmos H20 vapor content. Insist on farming irrigation? You've polluted because you've provided a NEW steady supply of GHGas...


 
Roads increase run off.  They do not increase the water vapor in the atmosphere.


You don't even KNOW what the atmos residency of CO2 really is..[/QUOTE]

CO2 has a short residence time

In the IPCC 4th Assessment Report glossary, "lifetime" has several related meanings. The most relevant one is: 
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.​In other words, life time is the average time an individual particle spends in a given box. It is calculated as the size of box (reservoir) divided by the overall rate of flow into (or out of) a box. The IPCC Third Assessment Report 4.1.4 gives more details. 

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y). 

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year). 

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2. 

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases). 

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is getting full and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 3, 2013)

Yes.  Because until humankind started that whole industrial revolution thing and nefariously dumped CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, there were NEVER any deserts before.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


 
Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet?  REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




^ can't quite grasp the difference between committing some pollution and causing climatic changes.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
I hate that for you.  You can always take a class.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I'm out a lot.. LOVE the environment and outdoors. Do quite a bit myself to keep it clean.

All I've done in that post is to summarize 1566 pages of USMB Enviro forum debate into a couple concise paragraphs.. I'm a skeptic and I ACCEPT the GREENHOUSE effect and the numbers that Physics provides for an atmos doubling of CO2 (with a couple caveats).. 

The ONLY difference between you and me --- is your silly belief that ONE DEGREE (or less) of temperature change is gonna MAGICALLY MORPH into FOUR or EIGHT degrees of Planet killing climate change.. All because you TAKE IT ON FAITH --- that the planets' climate system is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE and will self-destruct from a 1degC change.. 

'Bout sum up our disagreement bud??


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet?  REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?


The generic doing damage to the planet does not, by automatic extension, mean that the damage involved leads to the global environmental apocalypse that the AGW merchants of doom are peddling.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








That is a false statement.  And, more to the point, who cares.  The last 16 years of cooling has put paid to the failed theory of AGW.  Period.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 
CO2 has a short residence time

In the IPCC 4th Assessment Report glossary, "lifetime" has several related meanings. The most relevant one is: 
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.​In other words, life time is the average time an individual particle spends in a given box. It is calculated as the size of box (reservoir) divided by the overall rate of flow into (or out of) a box. The IPCC Third Assessment Report 4.1.4 gives more details. 

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y). 

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year). 

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2. 

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases). 

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is getting full and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).[/QUOTE]







  Oz has ALWAYS been dry you ignorant fool.  Further the native flora REQUIRES wildfires as an essential part of its life cycle.  olfraud, you are simply a broken record and you forgot which persona you were again...  Time to get you and all of your clones banned.  You waste bandwidth...


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?
> ...


 
What do you think would happen to the atmosphere and the biosphere if the majority of the world's forests were cut down and not replaced (keeping in mind that 30% has already been irreversibly destroyed)?  What do you think would happen if we irreversibly damage the ocean's food chain by wiping out vital plankton and fish populations?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave! 
 Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! 

But none of that is going to happen either, with a breathtakingly miniscule uptick in total atmospheric CO2.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
Since I've never stated anywhere on USMB what I think the level of increase in global temperatures is likely to be, strawman, dude.  Nor have I stated what I think the breakpoint could be. So again, strawman, dude.  

As for the planet's climate being inherently unstable, the geologic record doesn't actually support this scenario.  Does it change, sometimes drastically, sometimes suddenly?  Yes.  There are also thousands of feet of strata from different eras indicating millions of years of relatively stable climate over very broad regions of the planet.

It isn't as simple as you would have us believe.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 








			
				westfool said:
			
		

> Oz has ALWAYS been dry you ignorant fool.


 
Always? Ahem. Are you suggesting that these Devonian-aged reef fossils in Australia resulted from Noah's flood?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


 
Are you suggesting that we can run slipshod across the planet without consequence?  It would not surprise me if you actually believed that.  There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I'm suggesting what George Carlin suggested years ago:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]George Carlin on The Environment - YouTube[/ame]

What I'm also suggesting is that you are far too dour and super-duper-whooper-serious to recognize when you're being mocked, for the hysterical fool that you are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh but it IS that simple.. We both agree as to the effects of CO2 and the GHouse effect.. The diff is that AGW is all about a theory that USES that "trigger" to construct nightmarish scenarios for the sake of public policy persuasion.. If you don't believe the Earth's climate is sooooooo fragile that it will DESTROY itself over a 1degC trigger ---- Then YOU'VE wasted a lot of time and energy defending AGW... 

Clear as day.. That's the diff... 

And you can't step away that easily.. You argue that the MODELS are correct.. You spend PAGES telling us how accurate the predictions are --- Yet somehow --- you think you've never committed to a 4degC temp change because of "positive feedbacks" and "accelerators".. Git off my cloud clown...


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


 
As much as I love and respect a lot of what George Carlin said when he was alive, he was an entertainer, a comedian. He doesn't go out on the fishing trawlers and see that the catches are coming up ever short each year - so much so that Europe called a moratorium on Cod fishing because they, a species human beings heavily depend on, are nearly gone in many of the ocean's prime fishing regions. He never lived down gradient from a power plant's fly ash landfill. He never depended on a contaminated well for his drinking water. That Carlin made fun of the environmental movement (and made a pay check from doing it) doesn't surprise me. What would have surprised me is if he had gotten off his arse and visited a gold mine in New Guinea that leaches mercury into the environment, killing many species, and harming the people who live and work there. He is right, the people are fucked up. He is right. The planet is a dangerous place to live. But that doesn't excuse irresponsible human behavior when it comes to the environment that we all depend on for our survival and our children's future. Yes, most life on earth that has ever lived is extinct. No we didn't kill all of them. But that's part of the point. WE are killing them now, and the fact is that we simply do not have a right to play god with the biosphere. It is a dangerous game, not only for other life forms, but for our own future. Life is hard enough on this planet without humans unnecessarily adding to the misery.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 3, 2013)

Even when one enters a value of zeros into a climate model they still will always predict a warming.


----------



## Rebelitarian (Dec 3, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



How old are you ?

Have you ever heard of the carbon cycle ?

You know CO2 is used by plants via photosynthesis along with water to make glucose right ?

Were you educated in the South ?


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

Everything the IPCC did was all part of a HOAX. 

The IPCC's findings did not support the Theory of Global Warming, amazing, the theory failed and the masses of drones simply continue to jump off the cliff. 

I guess this is the result of Money, Greed, Power, and the Socialist Religion of Creating Utopia. All hail the United Nations and the new Socialist saviors of the World. Never mind that they perpetrated a fraud with the IPCC and destroyed the data and who knows what else to cover up the fraud, its your ideal of Utopia that counts, you sense of how your ideals make you better person, a more intelligent person, who must impose your belief on all of us, for the planets own good, even in this thread I see the intelligent Socialist patting himself on the back, for all the one does in their lives on a daily basis, saving the planet. 

Well, the Nazi's had the Jews to rally against, The Marxist who killed tens of millions had Capitalist to hate, and todays new Socialists have Global Warming deniers.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
> 
> Everything the IPCC did was all part of a HOAX.
> 
> ...


 
Godwin's law.  You lose.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 3, 2013)

Bingo!


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 3, 2013)

Rebelitarian said:


> How old are you ?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the carbon cycle ?
> 
> ...



59.  You?

Yes.

Yes.

Partially.  I grew up in Kansas but attended four universities in Florida.  

Pray tell, what does "the South" have to do with it?  You're not one of those fools who think folks in the south are preternaturally stupid, are you?


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
> ...



Actually you lose, human behaviour does not change, it repeats itself over and over, its clear that Liberals hate Conservatives, Godwin's law is what the ignorant throw around when they have no rebuttal, no position, no facts nor ability to defend their beliefs and opinion. 

You cite the IPCC as evidence, you lose, the IPCC and its work has all been a fraud, when the results from the data concluded no Global Warming caused by CO2, the IPCC began deleted the data.

The IPCC proved there was no Global Warming, threw away the data and results confirming no Global Warming, and lied to the entire World about it.

CO2, better at keeping stuff cold, its called Dry Ice, but in the world of Liberalism, white is black and black is white and Dry Ice actually warms things up, not keep them cold.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



All that flap-yap, and not a single link to a real scientific site.

Dry ice, do you know have any idea of the amount of energy used to create dry ice? And the CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas, just in case you have not noticed. 

That thing sitting in front of you has several search engines you can use to gain knowledge above that of a third grader. I suggest you use it.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
Au contraire.  "Hitler, Marxists, and Socialists" is what conservative losers toss onto the stage when it is clear they have nothing to add to the discussion.



			
				elecktra said:
			
		

> ]You cite the IPCC as evidence, you lose, the IPCC and its work has all been a fraud, when the results from the data concluded no Global Warming caused by CO2, the IPCC began deleted the data.


 
Do you call yourself elecktra because you've had electroshock therapy?  If so, you should sue your doctor because it didn't work.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 3, 2013)




----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 3, 2013)

Show us where Al Gore ever asked anyone to send him money.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2013)

The main driver of the transition to renewables is the PRIVATE sector. So attack on conservatives. hypocrites!


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

No, it's not.

The only way so-called renewables survive is by way of subsides and grants.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

HelenaHandbag said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> The only way so-called renewables survive is by way of subsides and grants.


 
If every renewable energy company was getting subsidies and grants in order to stay afloat, you might have a point. Do you have any evidence that that is the case? By the way, you do know that even coal companies and nuclear plants get subsidies, right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not.
> ...



It's sad that you're not kidding here.. The only 2 major Solar manufacturers LEFT in the US are in deep kimchee financially and would fold TOMORROW without massive subsidies.. Every wind manufacturer and installer is HIGHLY subsidized. Every Electric car maker is also.. *The reason GE pays no taxes is largely because they get so many Green Credits --- they can't spend them all in any one year.. *

Do you know ANY renewable related product that ISN'T?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...


 
Dude, you didn't know that solar energy is not the only renewable energy source? Huh. Are our hydroelectric plants getting subsidies?

Only 2 left eh?

Then this list of solar manufacturers is a fabrication, eh?

Solar Panel Manufacturers

Listed below are most of the major manufacturers of photovoltaic solar panels which are available in the U.S.:

Photovoltaic Solar Panel Manufacturers
Advent Solar
Amonix Inc
Atlantis Energy System Inc.
B P Solar Int'l LLC
Canrom Photovoltaics, Inc.
DayStar Technologies Inc.
Energy Photovoltaics Inc, 
Evergreen Solar Inc.
First Solar LLC.
GE Energy (USA) LLC
Global Solar Energy Inc.
Innergy Power Corporation,
Iowa Thin Film Technologies
Kyocera Solar Inc.
Matrix Solar Technologies
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
Mitsui Comtek Corp.
Pacific SolarTech
RWE Schott Solar Inc.
SANYO Energy (USA) Corporation
Sanyo Semiconductor Corporation
Sharp Manufacturing Company of America
Shell Solar Industries LP
Solar Power Industries, Inc.
Spire Corporation
Sunpower Corporation
Sunwatt Corporation
Sunwize Technologies LLC
Terra Solar Global, Inc.
Tideland Signal Corporation
United Solar Ovonic LLC.​Solar Hot Water System Manufacturers

There are also many companies which manufacture solar water heating systems. Listed below are some of the major manufacturers: 
AAA Solar Supply
Alternative Energy Tech LLC
Aquatherm Industries, Inc.
Conserval Systems Inc
Fafco Inc
Harter Industries
Heliocol USA, Inc.
Heliodyne Inc.
Industrial Solar Technology
Puerto Rico Solar Products
R & R Services
Radco Products, Inc.
Rheem Manufacturing Company
Sealed Air Corporation
Solar Developments Inc
Solar Living, Inc.
Solargenix Energy LLC 
SolarRoofs.com
Sun Quest
SunEarth Inc
Sunsiaray Solar Mfg Inc
Techno-solis Inc.
Thermal Conversion Technology
Thermo Technologies
Universal Solar Products 

And these are just the solar companies.

How, do you have any evidence that all of these companies are getting government subsidies and grants?

And even if they were, so what?​


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



1) I said MAJOR AMERICAN solar panel manufacturers. 

2) NOT solar bird house heater manufacturers.. 

And yes --- there are only 2 or 3 AMERICAN panel manufacturers left with appreciable plant  volume.

As for Hydro --- How subsidized do you want it to be since MOST OF IT was freaking BUILT by the government..
Solar thermal is mostly residential and YES it is highly subsidized UPON INSTALLATION.. Including Fannie loans for financing.


Post less -- think more often.. That's what my 5th grade teacher taught me..


----------



## elektra (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Evergreen Solar Inc, first company I picked randomly from your list, received subsidies, filed for bankruptcy, and then moved to China. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/08/15/state-subsidized-company-files-bankruptcy-and-heads-to-china/



> Evergreen Solar Inc. is the Massachusetts-based clean-energy company that received subsidies from the Patrick-Murray Administration in order to fund a new factory in its home state, according to a report from The Boston Herald.
> 
> Here&#8217;s a video of the Massachusetts governor at the time, Deval Patrick, making a speech in 2008 to congratulate the expansion of Evergreen Solar and to illustrate his vision of private business and government working together to build, what he called &#8220;a different kind of business climate to grow that sector.&#8221;





> &#8220;The bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar is another sad event for the Massachusetts company and highlights the folly of the Patrick-Murray Administration which has put government subsidies into their pet projects instead of offering broad based relief to all Bay State employers,&#8221; said Jennifer Nassour, head of the state GOP.



orogenicman, you are ignorantly dishonest, if I am to be nice. 

So those who support AGW, Green Energy, just randomly search their beliefs on google, come up with a list of companies, and paste this information as if it validates their beliefs. The burden on is to prove them wrong, not just once, but thousands of times. 

Millions of disciples, unable to reason, blindly following google results.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
Ahem. "Listed below are most of the* major manufacturers of photovoltaic solar panels*". Did you miss this? 

Oh, and don't move the goalpost.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> As for Hydro --- How subsidized do you want it to be since MOST OF IT was freaking BUILT by the government..


 
Right. So lets get rid of all our hydroelectric plants because they are a leaching off the taxpayers.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Where did the Hg come from originally?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
You said only 2.  I see 31 on the list.  So to call me the dishonest one here is just you looking at yourself in the mirror.



> So those who support AGW, Green Energy, just randomly search their beliefs on google, come up with a list of companies, and paste this information as if it validates their beliefs. The burden on is to prove them wrong, not just once, but thousands of times.
> 
> Millions of disciples, unable to reason, blindly following google results.


 
I produced a list.  If you believe that list is in error, by all means correct it.  At least I produced a list.  You haven't said who these "only two" are.  So I suppose we are to just take your word for it.  Not going to happen.  Next.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
> ...








Asshats always trot out Godwin when the observations are hitting too close to home.  You lose.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








That argument holds for you as well.  Science fiction is a literary form, not science.  When oh when will you learn the difference.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








C'mon olfraud.  Even you should be able to do better than that.  Why don't you come up with ONE company that doesn't receive a subsidy.  According to your claim that should be easy peasey.   So let's see one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 3, 2013)

YES YOU MORON --- ONly 2 or 3 LEFT in the USA to recieve any Subsidies.. 

How many major *panel* manufacturers on YOUR list are FULLY US based companies??? 

Do you know what your US FLAG looks like?? Go HERE and count them.. 


> List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## elektra (Dec 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You produced a list? No you googled and cut/pasted a list with no thought put into. You can not even read, I stated the first company I searched at random was a bankrupt subsidized company, the opposite of what you posted. Now I am suppose to go through your entire cut/paste, research a post you put zero thought or effort into.

Nice job, even when your wrong your still right, bravo.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 4, 2013)

It's called using google. Try it and find out who gets the money.

Coal, natural gas and oil also gets the same fucking thing.


----------



## westwall (Dec 4, 2013)

Matthew said:


> It's called using google. Try it and find out who gets the money.
> 
> Coal, natural gas and oil also gets the same fucking thing.









No, they get tax breaks.  They would STILL exist without government largesse.  Renewable companies won't.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## lakeview (Dec 4, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
> 
> I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.
> 
> ...



Do the same thing with a bag full of pure Oxygen and see how long you live. You won't die as fast as you will breathing CO2 but you will die. See how this game is played?


----------



## elektra (Dec 4, 2013)

orogenicman, how about SunPower from your list? Seems being politically connected guarantees success at taxpayers expense. 



> Republican lawmakers on two House committees are seeking details about the loans given to First Solar, SunPower Corp. and ProLogis. Of those three companies, troubling financial revelations have emerged about SunPower, which sponsored a solar project that received a $1.2 billion loan, more than twice the money approved for Solyndra,





> The Energy Department says on its website that the $1.2 billion loan to help build the California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo County, a project that will help create 15 permanent jobs, which adds up to the equivalent of $80 million in taxpayer money for each job.
> 
> But the Energy Department stands by the project.
> 
> ...





> The company is also politically connected. Rep. George Miller's son is SunPower's top lobbyist. The elder Miller, a powerful California Democrat, toured the plant last October with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and reportedly said, "We've worked hard to make renewable energy a priority because it represents America's future economic growth. Today, businesses like SunPower are moving forward, hiring 200 people for good clean energy jobs in the Easy Bay."
> 
> It&#8217;s not clear what role, if any, either of them played in securing the loan. Miller&#8217;s office did not respond to a request for comment.
> 
> An Energy Department official denied crony capitalism was a factor in the loan guarantee.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 4, 2013)

How about showing us wind and solar concerns that failed to get government assistance because of their political positions?  Going through the hundreds of corporations that have received funding or loan guarantees and charging that everyone chaired by a democrat is the recipient of administration favoritism is simply bullshit.  All these companies had the promise of advancing the use of alternative energy and creating jobs.  Whether or not someone here knew someone there is irrelevant unless you can find more definitive evidence, particularly since there is a significant bias towards green energy among liberals and democrats and against it among conservatives and republicans.  Government assistance to the oil and coal industry would be found to benefit far more enemies of the current administration than friends.  Versteht?


----------



## elektra (Dec 4, 2013)

Green Energy is a government created industry, completely artificial.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 4, 2013)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
It doesn't matter.  You said that there were only two solar manufacturers left in the U.S. (YOU'RE WORDS).  I showed in no uncertain way that your claim was incorrect.  Whether or not they are U.S.-originated corporations is irrelevant.  They are registered businesses here, do business here, and have manufacturing facilities here.  Be a man for once in your miserable life, and admit that you were mistaken.


----------



## elektra (Dec 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are you not the guy that thinks Automotive Assembly plants used horse drawn wagons to deliver the materials they needed, now that is a holy crock of google crap made up in your imagination, horses were never used to deliver parts to the automotive assembly plants, by the time the first assembly line was made in Highland Park, trucks were being produced over a decade, not to mention the fact that steam trains were literally used, tracks right up to the first factory with an assembly line. 

How much energy does it take to make dry ice? More than a Wind Turbine or Solar Farm can provide. Did I get it right?

There is no link because the premise asserted is wrong, there is no debate with fraud and junk science.


----------



## elektra (Dec 4, 2013)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Just so you know, thought I would try and catch your attention with a gross error of yours


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 6, 2013)

You make dozens of extreme claims but present no evidence to support them whatsoever.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" but you seem to have none.

What do you EXPECT us to make of that?  If you want to be treated seriously and with respect, try backing up your claims with some objective evidence or some well-structured logic.  Just saying "the IPCC is a fraud" is both meaningless and worthless.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No you moron.. I said it HERE... 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/325963-think-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant-20.html#post8242596



> It's sad that you're not kidding here.. *The only 2 major Solar manufacturers LEFT in the US are in deep kimchee financially and would fold TOMORROW without massive subsidies.. *Every wind manufacturer and installer is HIGHLY subsidized. Every Electric car maker is also.. The reason GE pays no taxes is largely because they get so many Green Credits --- they can't spend them all in any one year..
> 
> Do you know ANY renewable related product that ISN'T?



Then you DID produce a bullshit list of companies making "solar products" and claimed that you had DEFEATED everyone.. And proceeded to harass our new bud Electra about something the poster never said.. 

About that CORRECT CLAIM i made.. I asked you to visit 

List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  and count the American flags you see there under MAJOR solar panel manufacturers.  Apparently you never did.. So lets' count together eh?? 







*Can you and Elmo find the 2 American flags in that chart? Are they both in deep financial trouble? Would they survive a WEEK without MASSIVE subsidies? Will you apologize for being an ass? *


Just in case you want to quibble about the defination of MAJOR manufacturer, that link also has a table of "significant producers".. Can you count higher than 2? 











After you count --- you can subtract EverGreen Solar which went belly up since and any entry without a name attached. (i have no idea what wiki was thinking there)

Don't know if you understand who was in your LIST.. But the topic was MAJOR AMERICAN SOLAR PANEL manufacturers.. And you lose...


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 6, 2013)

Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?

POLLUTANT: 

something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 

n. 
 Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

pollutant  (p&#601;-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key  
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.  --The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. 

POLLUTE:
pol·lute  [puh-loot]  Show IPA
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1.
to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2.
to make morally unclean; defile.
3.
to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4.
Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 6, 2013)

The federal government invest big time within the energy sector.
Oil
Coal
Natural gas
Wind
solar

you name it.

I am for it too.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 6, 2013)

If you idiots don't realize the federal government has pushed just about every technological advancement the past 65 year. Well, you're not the brightest.

How the Government Built Fracking | EMagazine.com


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?
> 
> POLLUTANT:
> 
> ...







None of those apply to CO2.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?
> 
> POLLUTANT:
> 
> ...



Shame on you WestWall.. Back to Sensitivity Seminars for you..  Of course there's one definition offered that it meets.. 



> 3.  .... to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.



That's why you're a member of the Church --- Right Reverend Abraham??


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> If you idiots don't realize the federal government has pushed just about every technological advancement the past 65 year. Well, you're not the brightest.
> 
> How the Government Built Fracking | EMagazine.com



C'mon Matthew.. Get serious.. $100Mill in research grants.. And the GOVT gets credit for fracking? They've spent 3 times that amount on one friggin website.. 

And all that other crappola about exploration tax breaks?? That's because they were testing and inventorying FEDERAL LAND.. You don't expect the FEDS to know how operate heavy machinery and drill equipment ---  do ya? Or we could just GUESS how much in resources Fed land holds..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?
> ...



They almost all apply to the 130+ ppm of CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere.  CO2 has not made the atmosphere morally unclean or ceremonially unclean.  That would be the output of the denier camp.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 8, 2013)

Carbon dioxide like Oxygen is good in sort percentages.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







No, they don't.  That level has never been attributed to ANYTHING.  Here's how ridiculous your statement is, at a atmospheric concentration of 200 ppm NOTHING grows.  No plants, no algae, no nothing.  We are almost double that amount and what has occurred?  Plant life has bloomed.

No claim you fools has ever made has EVER come to pass.  Not one.  Further, all the historical and paleo-climatological evidence says you're full of crap.


"Laboratory Experiments & Results

    Research regarding the effect of carbon dioxide levels on plant growth began in the early 1980s, when concerns over increased CO2 levels as a consequence of climate change first surfaced. As mentioned in the previous section, the present-day atmospheric CO2 value of 380 ppm is expected to rise to approximately 550 ppm in the year 2050. Laboratory experiments conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which were primarily conducted in open-top chambers, indeed affirmed the science behind the theoretical claim that global average crop yield would increase in response to rising CO2. Such experiments indicated that at 25 degrees Celsius, an atmospheric CO2 increase of 170 ppm from present levels would enhance photosynthetic productivity by 38%. (Ainsworth et al., 2008) However, it is important to note that these experiments were inadequate models to predict future yields. Although the chambers were partially open to the environment and designed to stimulate the natural environment as accurately as possible, they necessarily altered factors including temperature, vapor pressure, air flow, rainfall, and pest and/or disease vulnerability, all of which are necessary in considering plant productivity. Furthermore, the small practical size of these chambers exaggerated plant response to elevated CO2, as CO2 was restricted in its atmospheric diffusion. This optimistic outlook on carbon dioxide's effects on crop yield were accepted for approximately two decades. Due to the limitations of the experiments used to support it, however, the free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) model for testing these theories was developed in the 21st-century."


https://sites.google.com/site/climateandsocietyproject/Home/whats-being-done


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Carbon dioxide like Oxygen is good in sort percentages.








In the entire history of this planet there has never been a time when CO2 was at a level that was too much.  The O2 levels are still rising and remember mr. flat earther, there was no free O2 in our atmosphere until around 1.8 to 1.7 billion years ago.  Since then the O2 concentrations have been rising ever higher.  None of the flat earhters ever deal with that fact either.  

They are simpletons playing with simple computer models that give simple responses.  All for a climactic system that is so complex that none of them can even get past the 1+1 stage.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> They are simpletons playing with simple computer models that give simple responses.  All for a climactic system that is so complex that none of them can even get past the 1+1 stage.



You are so full of shit it is sadly comical.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Carbon dioxide like Oxygen is good in sort percentages.
> ...


 
So the Permian-Triassic extinction event doesn't ring a bell?



			
				westwall said:
			
		

> The O2 levels are still rising and remember mr. flat earther, there was no free O2 in our atmosphere until around 1.8 to 1.7 billion years ago. Since then the O2 concentrations have been rising ever higher. None of the flat earhters ever deal with that fact either.
> 
> They are simpletons playing with simple computer models that give simple responses. All for a climactic system that is so complex that none of them can even get past the 1+1 stage.


 
So we are to believe, based on your complete lack of understanding of conditions that existed during the pre-Cambrian, that mankind's future rests on our ability to survive in a such a world? Really?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Pin-pointing the exact cause (or causes) of the Permian&#8211;Triassic extinction event is a difficult undertaking, mostly because the catastrophe occurred over 250 million years ago, and much of the evidence that would have pointed to the cause has either been destroyed by now or is concealed deep within the Earth under many layers of rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

So saying that is based on too much CO2 is very misleading.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 8, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Except that there is plenty of evidence that volcanically derived CO2 was largely responsible for the event.

The Siberian Traps


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Incorrect! Your link is to a Conspiracy web site and not based on any science, just like AGW. Goes to show that the AGW church member will believe anything.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 8, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
Erm, the paleobiology and biodiversity research group page of the University of Bristol web site is a "conspiracy web site"?  Some might think you've lost your mind.  It is clear to me that you never had one to begin with.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



YEs the site you linked to is a Conspiracy.

The Siberian Traps were the largest volcanic eruption in Earth history and they occurred right at the same time as the largest extinction event in Earth history. 

 Co-incidence? 

That is how your link starts out. This has NEVER been proven. It is even rife with spelling errors, not sure how you can call it creditable to your cause. Although I do know that the church members will believe anything.

Seems to me that this was just an idea for a class to get a grade, most likely on-line and the coding and page design shows it very dated.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 8, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's hard to gauge just how retarded you have to be, Klod, to cite sources that you've obviously barely started to read, but I'm guessing that it is 'pretty damn retarded'. I'm going to quote some more of that Wikipedia article that you cited and quoted.

There were very probably a number of complimentary causes that combined to produce such a mammoth worldwide extinction event but, from the evidence that has been studied, the huge carbon dioxide and methane releases that raised planetary temperatures by over ten degrees Fahrenheit (and much more than that in the polar regions) played a huge role. 

*Permian&#8211;Triassic extinction event*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts - the material quoted here is not under copyright but is instead published under a Creative Commons license that allows free reproduction for educational purposes)

*The final stages of the Permian had two flood basalt events. A small one, Emeishan Traps in China, occurred at the same time as the end-Guadalupian extinction pulse, in an area close to the equator at the time.[97][98] The flood basalt eruptions that produced the Siberian Traps constituted one of the largest known volcanic events on Earth and covered over 2,000,000 square kilometres (770,000 sq mi) with lava.[99][100][101] The Siberian Traps eruptions were formerly thought to have lasted for millions of years, but recent research dates them to 251.2 ± 0.3 Ma &#8212; immediately before the end of the Permian.[9][102]

The Emeishan and Siberian Traps eruptions may have caused dust clouds and acid aerosols&#8212;which would have blocked out sunlight and thus disrupted photosynthesis both on land and in the photic zone of the ocean, causing food chains to collapse. These eruptions may also have caused acid rain when the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere. This may have killed land plants and molluscs and planktonic organisms which had calcium carbonate shells. The eruptions would also have emitted carbon dioxide, causing global warming. When all of the dust clouds and aerosols washed out of the atmosphere, the excess carbon dioxide would have remained and the warming would have proceeded without any mitigating effects.[90]

The Siberian Traps had unusual features that made them even more dangerous. Pure flood basalts produce a lot of runny lava and do not hurl debris into the atmosphere. It appears, however, that 20% of the output of the Siberian Traps eruptions was pyroclastic, i.e. consisted of ash and other debris thrown high into the atmosphere, increasing the short-term cooling effect.[103] The basalt lava erupted or intruded into carbonate rocks and into sediments that were in the process of forming large coal beds, both of which would have emitted large amounts of carbon dioxide, leading to stronger global warming after the dust and aerosols settled.[90]

In January 2011, a team led by Stephen Grasby of the Geological Survey of Canada&#8212;Calgary, reported evidence that volcanism caused massive coal beds to ignite, possibly releasing more than 3 trillion tons of carbon. The team found ash deposits in deep rock layers near what is now Buchanan Lake. According to their article, "... coal ash dispersed by the explosive Siberian Trap eruption would be expected to have an associated release of toxic elements in impacted water bodies where fly ash slurries developed ...", and "Mafic megascale eruptions are long-lived events that would allow significant build-up of global ash clouds".[104][105] In a statement, Grasby said, "In addition to these volcanoes causing fires through coal, the ash it spewed was highly toxic and was released in the land and water, potentially contributing to the worst extinction event in earth history."[106]

Methane hydrate gasification

Scientists have found worldwide evidence of a swift decrease of about 1% in the 13C/12C isotope ratio in carbonate rocks from the end-Permian.[48][107] This is the first, largest, and most rapid of a series of negative and positive excursions (decreases and increases in 13C/12C ratio) that continues until the isotope ratio abruptly stabilised in the middle Triassic, followed soon afterwards by the recovery of calcifying life forms (organisms that use calcium carbonate to build hard parts such as shells).[13]

Other hypotheses include mass oceanic poisoning releasing vast amounts of CO2[111] and a long-term reorganisation of the global carbon cycle.[108]
However, only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 1.0% reduction in the 13C/12C ratio: the release of methane from methane clathrates,[46] and carbon-cycle models confirm it would have been sufficient to produce the observed reduction.[108][111] Methane clathrates, also known as methane hydrates, consist of methane molecules trapped in cages of water molecules. The methane, produced by methanogens (microscopic single-celled organisms), has a 13C/12C ratio about 6.0% below normal (&#948;13C &#8722;6.0%). At the right combination of pressure and temperature, it gets trapped in clathrates fairly close to the surface of permafrost and in much larger quantities at continental margins (continental shelves and the deeper seabed close to them). Oceanic methane hydrates are usually found buried in sediments where the seawater is at least 300 m (980 ft) deep. They can be found up to about 2,000 m (6,600 ft) below the sea floor, but usually only about 1,100 m (3,600 ft) below the sea floor.[112]

The area covered by lava from the Siberian Traps eruptions is about twice as large as was originally thought, and most of the additional area was shallow sea at the time. The seabed probably contained methane hydrate deposits, and the lava caused the deposits to dissociate, releasing vast quantities of methane.[113]

One would expect a vast release of methane to cause significant global warming, since methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. Strong evidence suggests the global temperatures increased by about 6°C (10.8°F) near the equator and therefore by more at higher latitudes: a sharp decrease in oxygen isotope ratios (18O/16O);[114] the extinction of Glossopteris flora (Glossopteris and plants that grew in the same areas), which needed a cold climate, and its replacement by floras typical of lower paleolatitudes.[115]*


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 8, 2013)

Damn Brit Science Schools.. Always misspelling English words. And their dreadful choices of colours..

It's a THEORY Kosh.. Lighten up... Bad theories are not neccessarily conspiracies.. Everyone can have one. I usually have SEVERAL dreadful ones before I come up with a respectable one..


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...









Why yes it does olfraud (seriously, you need to drop this sock puppet) and here are the best theories for the cause...  You'll notice the TWO most likely causes center on COOLING.  Not warmth.  Show me any time in history when warmth killed.  All you have is your computer generated science fiction to support your tall tales.  The actual physical record shows that cold, and only cold is a killer.


"Speculated Causes of the Permian Extinction
 Although the cause of the Permian mass extinction remains a debate, numerous theories have been formulated to explain the events of the extinction. One of the most current theories for the mass extinction of the Permian is an agent that has been also held responsible for the Ordovician and Devonian crises, glaciation on Gondwana. A similar glaciation event in the Permian would likely produce mass extinction in the same manner as previous, that is, by a global widespread cooling and/or worldwide lowering of sea level. 





The Formation of Pangea

 Another theory which explains the mass extinctions of the Permian is the reduction of shallow continental shelves due to the formation of the super-continent Pangea. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian. 





Glaciation

 A third possible mechanism for the Permian extinction is rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations produced by concurrent glaciation events on the north and south poles. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred. 





Volcanic Eruptions

 The fourth and final suggestion that paleontologists have formulated credits the Permian mass extinction as a result of basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia. These volcanic eruptions were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred." 



Causes of the Permian Extinction


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...








By all means tell us what was happening in the Pre-Cambrian.  I am interested to hear what you have to say.  Be specific.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








No, there isn't.  What is the result of volcanic eruptions today?  Cooling.  Not warming.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Oh, swell, walleyed, a virtual online 'museum' article written by god knows who, god knows how long ago. No references, no citations, no info.

Here's a report on the actual latest research, published last year in _Science_, that I find much more credible and in line with most of the other studies I've seen.

*Extreme Global Warming May Have Caused Largest Extinction Ever*
LiveScience
Charles Choi
October 18, 2012
(excerpts)
*Feverishly hot ocean surface waters potentially reaching more than 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) may have helped cause the greatest mass extinction in Earth's history, researchers say. "We may have found the hottest time the world has ever had," researcher Paul Wignall, a geologist at the University of Leeds in England, told LiveScience. The mass extinction at the end of the Permian Era about 250 million years ago was the greatest die-off in Earth's history. The cataclysm killed as much as 95 percent of the planet's species. One key factor behind this disaster was probably catastrophic volcanic activity in what is now Siberia that spewed out as much as 2.7 million square miles (7 million square kilometers) of lava, an area nearly as large as Australia. These eruptions might have released gases that damaged Earth's protective ozone layer. After the end-Permian mass extinction came a time "called the 'dead zone,'" Wignall said. "It's this 5-million-year period where there's no recovery, where there is a very low diversity of life." The dead zone apparently experienced a serious case of global warming, but the extremes this global warming reached were uncertain. To find out, scientists analyzed fossils dating from 253 million to 245 million years ago, shortly before and after the mass extinction. 

"We've got a case of extreme global warming, the most extreme ever seen in the last 600 million years," Wignall said. "We think the main reason for the dead zone after the end-Permian is a very hot planet, particularly in equatorial parts of the world." The upper part of the ocean may have reached about 100 degrees F (38 degrees C), and sea-surface temperatures may have exceeded 104 degrees F (40 degrees C). For comparison, today's average annual sea-surface temperatures around the equator are 77 to 86 degrees F (25 to 30 degrees C). "Photosynthesis starts to shut down at about 35 degrees C [95 degrees F], and plants often start dying at temperatures above 40 degrees C [104 degrees F]," Wignall said. "This would explain why there's not much fossil record of plants at the end-Permian&#8212; for instance, there are no peat swamps forming, no coal-forming whatsoever. This was a huge, devastating extinction." Without plants to absorb carbon dioxide, more of this heat-trapping gas would stay in the atmosphere, driving up temperatures further. "There are other ways of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but the planet lost a key way for millions of years," Wignall said. These lethally hot temperatures may explain why the regions at and near the equator were nearly uninhabited. Nearly all fish and marine reptiles were driven to higher latitudes, and those creatures that remained were often smaller, making it easier for them to shed any heat from their bodies. The scientists detailed their findings in the Oct. 19 issue of the journal Science.*


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
Don't confuse plinian eruptions with flood basalt eruptions.  They are not the same thing.  Plinian eruptions, such as occurred with Mt. Pinatubo, produces copious amounts of ash and sulfur dioxide which do cool the atmosphere, but only erupt for a relatively short period of time.  Flood basalt eruptions don't produce a lot of ash, but instead emit copious amounts of CO2.  The Siberian trapps were the very definition of a flood basalt eruption, and they erupted for hundreds of thousands of years, raising global temperature up to 10 degrees C above what it was prior to the eruptions.  What's worse, it took ten million years for life to recover from the resulting mass extinction event.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
The point is, dumbass, do you truly believe that life as it exists today on this planet, particularly human life, can exist under pre-Cambrian conditions?  Because you appear to believe that were that to occur, it would be a walk in the park.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
Oh-MY-GOD.  Do you really want me to produce peer reviewed papers on what is widely considered to be the front-running geologic theory on the Permian-Triassic extinction event?  Because, if that is what you need, I can produce a couple of dozen, at the least.  Because this theory has been around for at least 15 years.  I'm sorry that you didn't get the memo.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
You chose an expose from the 1996 World's Fair? REALLY?

How about something more recent, something more professionally produced?

Age of the Emeishan flood magmatism and relations to Permian?Triassic boundary events

*Abstract*

The PermianTriassic (PT) mass extinction, the greatest biological mortality event in the Earths history, was probably caused by dramatic and global forcing mechanisms such as the Siberian flood volcanism. Here we present the first set of high-precision 40Ar/39Ar dating results of volcanic and intrusive rocks from the Emeishan Traps, South China, which define a main stage of the flood magmatism at &#8764;251253 Ma and a subordinate precursory activity at &#8764;255 Ma. This time span is generally coeval with, or slightly older than, the age of the PT boundary estimated by the ash beds in the Meishan stratotype section and the main eruption of the Siberian Traps. Our data reinforces the notion that the eruption of the Emeishan Traps, rather than eruption of the Siberian Traps, accounted for the formation of the PT boundary ash beds in South China. The Emeishan flood magmatism, which occurred in the continental margin comprising thick marine limestone formations, moreover, may have triggered rapid release of large volumes of methane and carbon dioxide that could have been responsible for the global &#948;13C excursion and associated environmental crisis leading to the mass extinction at the PT boundary.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> By all means tell us what was happening in the Pre-Cambrian.  I am interested to hear what you have to say.  Be specific.



HAHAHAHAHahaaaahaahahaaaa.... oh jeez, now THAT was

*PWNED ! ! !*


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...











"MAY HAVE"  The most common language of the bunco artist.  And you're too stupid or you're too heavily invested to see that.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that, I hope.   What about the Deccan Plateau eruptions?  C'mon silly person if you're going to toss names around toss them all.  And yes, flood basalt eruptions DO emit tons of ash, it's just heavier so falls out of the atmosphere faster.

Further SO2 is emitted from shield volcano's in greater quantities than any other type of volcano.  Why does that matter you ask?  Because shield volcano's are the best analog we have for a flood basalt eruption.


Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









I believe I AM THE ONE who pointed out that there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere during the pre-Cambrian dumbshit, so the assumption would be no, don't you think?   Are you so totally incapable of thought you can't get there?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Yes, I do.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









It's far more accurate than the wiki BS you post.  And it is used by the Canadian Parks System.  So yes.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > By all means tell us what was happening in the Pre-Cambrian.  I am interested to hear what you have to say.  Be specific.
> ...









Wow, where exactly was anyone pwned.  You have a very low standard I see.  Thinking people require an exchange to have actually occurred.  This is the challenge asswipe.  The pwnage will come later and you won't like the result I can assure you.

Man you're dumb...


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Right.  The most common language of deniers and creationists (who, not coincidentally, have a lot in common):

*"It's only a theory".*


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
If you had half a brain, you would have noted that my link:

Age of the Emeishan flood magmatism and relations to Permian?Triassic boundary events

Was not from Wikipedia.  So no, it is not.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Wow, you are so stupid you don't even know it.  You have my sympathy.  Oh wait...


No you don't.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



\






Of course your problem is nobody I know, who is a sceptic, is also a creationist.  In fact it is your side that has the creationists in it or didn't you know that AGW is an accepted theory by the Catholic Church?  

OOOOOPPS!  All the religious nutters are believers in AGW!


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes, I have a brain and I can post overwhelming proof that your primary source is wiki so I would suggest you mind your manners olfraud.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Really?  Where oh where is the pwnage olfraud?  I laid down a challenge, to date you have refused to engage in the contest.  If there is pwnage, it is from me to you, because you're too chicken to duke it out.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....thanks for once again definitively demonstrating what a befuddled, scientifically illiterate retard you are, walleyed. And soooo obsessed with fictional "_sock puppets_", a seemingly common paranoia among you denier cultists.

In the real world, this phrase "_may have_", that you are so quick to denigrate, is actually the language of science, which doesn't deal in absolute certainty but rather remains open to new data, if any comes along. Particularly when discussing hypotheses about an event that took place 250 million years ago.

Because they don't fit your little "_warming is always a good thing_" denier cult mythological structure, you reject both the research study that I cited and quoted, that was published just last year in *Science*, the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science which is considered to be one of the world's top scientific journals, and the published scientific study that orogenicman cited and quoted that appeared in another scientific journal, *Earth and Planetary Science*. Instead you assert that the "_far more accurate_" source of information about the Permian mass extinction is some undated, unsigned, un-referenced list of possible causes of that extinction event that is "_used by the Canadian Park System_", which you apparently imagine is the pre-eminent scientific authority on the planet. And, of course, you ignore the fact that even in the Canadian Parks System material that you cited, the list of possible causes for the Permian extinction includes "*rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations*" and "_*basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia*_". ROTFLMAO. You are *such* an ideologically blinded and completely clueless little retard.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

I see the AGW church just like the far left wants to rewrite history.

We would make head by leaps and bounds on the day the far left AGW church goers can admit they are wrong and mean it.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Somebody you know who is a denier IS a creationist.  You favorite pal, in fact - Anthony Watt.  Oh, and by the way, Catholics, by and large, are NOT creationists.  You didn't know this?  Huh.  Probably because of your narrow minded evangelic upbringing.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
That I occasionally refer to Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the fact that I didn't refer to it in this case.  That you continue to ignore the link I actually posted while continuing to rant on about Wikipedia demonstrates that you don't, in fact, have a brain.  Oh dear.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
You so-called challenge is tantamount to demanding that I prove plate tectonics.  You would have to have had your head buried in a large pile of shite for the last ten-twenty years to ignore the huge volume of information that is available on the subject.  Considering your utter ignorance of most other science issues, particularly climate science, it doesn't surprise me.  It explains the rather odiferous nature of your posts.  Congratulations.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No you have tendency to post from unreliable science or not science at all, just papers that were written for school.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

Kosh said:


> I see the AGW church just like the far left wants to rewrite history.
> 
> We would make head by leaps and bounds on the day the far left AGW church goers can admit they are wrong and mean it.


 
 Referring to science as a church or a religion is definitive proof that you've already lost the argument. Congratulations. Have a drink:


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
If that were true, then you would have no problem refuting the link I posted or the journal Earth and Planetary Science. Even the link I posted to which you refer came from a reputable University. Just because it was written in a format a three year old like you can understand doesn't make it their fault, or mine, that you still don't understand.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHahaaaahaahahaaaa.... oh jeez, now THAT was
> ...



Not just *"anyone"*.

*YOU*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2013)

Anything in high enough % can be a pollutant. 

Would you agree?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








No, I didn't ignore it.  However it is one of HUNDREDS of papers that have been published.  There are far more that support what I say than you.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









I'm an agnostic silly person.  The fact that you have to call people names who disagree with you is all I need to know about you olfraud.  BTW when are you going to drop the pretense?  We all KNOW who you are.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
You need to learn to lie better.  You're not good at it.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



WOW! The AGW church knows no bounds in it lies!


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I guess if anyone wants to be a good liar they need to follow your example right?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







And yet I'm not the one with multiple sock puppets like you!


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> And yet I'm not the one with multiple sock puppets like you!



So you've got nothing.

Perhaps you ought to check with FlaCalTenn.  Or Bripat.  Or Kosh.  Or Crusader Frank.  Or Skookerasbil.  Or Toddsterpatriot.  Or Daveman. Or Helena Handbag. Or Tiny Dancer. Or Mr H. Or Politico. Or FreedomBecki. Or Longknife. Or the ignorant traitor BigRebNC1775.  Your sock puppets.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And yet I'm not the one with multiple sock puppets like you!
> ...



No it is you that can not admit that you are wrong and that you are a loyal follow of the religion AGW that is not based on any science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It's a real shame you never learned how to use it then. Or perhaps this nonsense about you actually having a brain is just another one of your brain-free delusions. Or perhaps your brain stalled out in the eighth grade and your never could get it started up again. 

There's got to be some explanation for your complete imbelicity and insane delusions.






westwall said:


> and I can post overwhelming proof that your primary source is wiki so I would suggest you mind your manners olfraud.



LOLOLOL....that's a hoot....you obviously can't even find your own ass even using both hands, a roadmap and a GPS.

You have NEVER been able to post "_overwhelming proof_" of any of your denier cult myths and fantasies, except in your own befuddled imagination.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > That I occasionally refer to Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the fact that I didn't refer to it in this case.  That you continue to ignore the link I actually posted while continuing to rant on about Wikipedia demonstrates that you don't, in fact, have a brain.  Oh dear.
> ...



LOL.....oh, walleyed, you routinely "_ignore it_" when I completely debunk your crackpot denier cult myths and nonsense.

You always falsely claim that you have "_HUNDREDS of papers_" that support your delusional drivel but somehow you can never actually produce anything reputable that actually supports your nonsense. You demonstrate massive ignorance about actual science at every turn. Of course, you're too retarded and ignorant about science to be able to tell the difference between actual science and the lame brained pseudo-scientific bullshit you find on those denier cult blogs. The rare scientific paper that you do cite almost never is saying what you think it says because you've just taken the headline and link off of some moronic denier cult blog without actually reading the paper or being able to comprehend it if you did.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



This coming from an AGW church member.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You need to learn to lie better.  You're not good at it.
> ...



I've never quite understood this obsessive denier cult fantasy that everyone disagreeing with you must be a "_sock puppet_". You are far from the only denier cultist that I've heard accusing everyone of being someone's "_sock puppet_" Are you so afraid of acknowledging that you deniers are in a minority that you have to pretend there's only one person debunking your drivel? LOLOL. Pathetic! Or it perhaps an attempt to divert the thread topics into meaningless wrangling over nonsense?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Says the AGW puppet.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
You may not know much about me so let me clue you in.  I am at times mistaken, but I am not known to lie.  Now, if you have evidence that I am mistaken anywhere in this discussion, by all means, share it with the rest of us.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
I guess you didn't get the memo.  If not, you are the only one who didn't. Not only is Watt a creationist, but so is his pal, Roy Spencer.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And continued proof that AGW church lies knows no bounds.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
"Insanity - Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

- Albert Einstein


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And yet I'm not the one with multiple sock puppets like you!
> ...








What was that socko?


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...











Other than the religious dogma part of it that describes AGW cultism to a "T".


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
You've already lost the argument, pal.  Why continue to make a fool out of yourself?  Are you a masochist, or what?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Exactly and once you AGW church member s stop repeating the gospel as science the better off we will all be.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What argument? That AGW is Bunk?

No I won that argument.

If you mean the defeat in your propaganda then you are again incorrect.

Besides the obviously ridiculous attempts to link creationism to climate skepticsim (apparently the serial use of the word &#8220;denier&#8221; isn&#8217;t denigrating enough anymore) we have the unfortunate appointment of Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute. PI is another handout seeking non governmental organization that publishes its own science opinions.

Comparing climate skepticism to ?creationism? in the classroom | Watts Up With That?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
So your argument uses the defense of a creationist, by that very creationist? Do you have any idea how idiotic that is? Not only is Watt a known creationist, not only is Roy Spencer a known creationist, so is your pal Westwall. You didn't know this? Huh.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
Red Herring.  You just can't win for losing.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



More propaganda because you lost the argument!


----------



## Kosh (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



When are you AGW church goers going to learn that you can not win arguments with propaganda?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
Speaking of propaganda...


----------



## Kosh (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Still have no evidence to your claims other than you belief. 

And yes AGW is a religion not based on science, time to deal with it.

I am sure the AGW church goers next post will be filled with AGW propaganda not based on science or fact.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 10, 2013)

Anyone that takes watts up with that against nasa/noaa is a fucking kook and idiot.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



LOL!

Nothing is based more on science then what comes out of nasa, noaa,  and every single scientific society you can imagine...etc. They have all the data sets, and maintain all temperature data on this planet.

Even real skeptics like Spencer can't refute the theory...So he just tries to explain something's with real science. More or less sensivity is the best he can do.


What do you have? Propaganda and lies??? From a bunch of paid off political hacks.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 10, 2013)

Don't forget the right honorable James Inhofe


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Well, if I really wanted to _*LEARN*_ how to lie I could use you as a teacher I suppose.  However, as I have standards and ethics.....unlike yourself who has none, I will pass.

Thanks for the offer but I choose to not sink to your level.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Well, here's how it works for a dullard like you....  Sceptics are kicking the asses of you frauds all over the world.  Your religion and con job are failing.  So, to try and show fence sitters that you are really being used to wipe the floor you create false people to "support" your twisted POV's.  

That's why you always claim to be doing great....you idiots actually believe yourselves....it's quite amusing...  And I know for a fact that olfraud and oreoboy are one and the same.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Your delusions are getting even more out of touch with reality, walleyed. Probably as a result of your total immersion in the denier cult media echo chamber. And that 'sock puppet' obsession is just your dementia kicking in on top your pathological paranoia.

In the real world...

*Climate Change and Financial Instability Seen as Top Global Threats*
Pew Research - Global Attitudes Project - Survey Report
JUNE 24, 2013
(excerpts)

*Publics around the world are concerned about the effect of global climate change and international financial instability, with majorities in many of the nations surveyed saying these are major threats to their countries. But Islamic extremism is also a serious concern, particularly in the United States, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. In contrast, relatively few consider American or Chinese power and influence a major threat to their countries.

Concern about global climate change is particularly prevalent in Latin America, Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Asian/Pacific region, but majorities in Lebanon, Tunisia and Canada also say climate change is a major threat to their countries. In contrast, Americans are relatively unconcerned about global climate change. Four-in-ten say this poses a major threat to their nation, making Americans among the least concerned about this issue of the 39 publics surveyed, along with people in China, Czech Republic, Jordan, Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.*


----------



## lakeview (Dec 17, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



If you really want to play this game I can pull up articles showing that aspartame is good for you, and bad for you, and has no effect on you. Your point is? The procedure is what's in question here.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 17, 2013)

westwall said:
			
		

> Sceptics are kicking the asses of you frauds all over the world


 
It is a mystery to me why anyone would brag about licking anyone's ass. I don't understand the physical attraction.  

Oh, and the word is "skeptics". Just a little FYI.


----------

