CO2 is used to keep things COLD

[Boss]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

 

[Boss]

First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.

Second, it's only air temps, and disregards the relentless ocean warming.

Third, your data wasn't NOAA. It was RSS satellite data, known by everyone to have an erroneous growing cool bias. But because it says what they want to see, deniers rely on it exclusively, not caring whether it's accurate.

You couldn't know that, of course, as your cult didn't see fit to tell you that. You'd need to look at non-cult sources to know such a thing, and the cult strongly discourages that. The pure ones are not supposed to sully themselves through contact with the outside world.

You could show some integrity and guts now, and call your cult to task for fooling your like that. Or you could run back to them and defend them, much like a battered spouse does. And you're going to choose that latter option. Deniers always do.

We can look at any other temperature data set, and clearly see the strong warming going on. Like this one, from NASA-GISS

Alas, by the rules of your conspiracy cult, any data that disagrees with the conspiracy has to be part of conspiracy, and is thus invalid.

Yes... We can always count on a pinhead to come up with yet another "hockey stick" graph and way to manipulate the data to seemingly support their argument. Here, you are using the fact that the ocean became warmer due to the El Niño warming event as if this has something to do with CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's also pretty funny that you credit NASA with data from 1880.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.

 

[mamooth]

Boss, do you know when the thermometer was invented? Or what proxies are?

And when I pointed that you'd simply declare all contrary data to be part of the conspiracy by definition, immediately proceeding to do just that was probably not your best choice. But thanks for instantly confirming my point.

 

[Boss]

First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.

No, it doesn't. It clearly shows there has been no warming trend. You can almost draw a straight line at +0.2 across the past 18 years. There was an El Niño warming event in 1998 which caused a shift in global temps, since then, there has been no significant increase.

What it takes to deny this is apparently to be a liberal douche who is committed to carrying the water for socialists who want to destroy free market capitalism and help Al Gore sell books.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.

 

[Boss]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.

First of all, 97% is not a consensus. Second, you are counting among that 97%, those who simply say the global temps are getting warmer but have not said it's being caused by man. Our planet gets warmer and cooler in cycles and has been doing this for billions of years. I've never denied this, nor has anyone else that I am aware of.

It doesn't take "being smarter" than anyone else, all it takes is looking at a graph which shows us the average global temperatures since 1979 and comprehending how to read a graph.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.

First of all, 97% is not a consensus. Second, you are counting among that 97%, those who simply say the global temps are getting warmer but have not said it's being caused by man. Our planet gets warmer and cooler in cycles and has been doing this for billions of years. I've never denied this, nor has anyone else that I am aware of.

It doesn't take "being smarter" than anyone else, all it takes is looking at a graph which shows us the average global temperatures since 1979 and comprehending how to read a graph.

Again, I wish you luck in your endeavors, but only an idiot would go against the agreement of almost every expert in the field without some extraordinary knowledge, and I just don't see your little chart as extraordinary. Of course, if you could show some evidence on that silly charlatan claim, I'm sure many would be happy to reconsider.

 

[Boss]

Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.

What silly claims did I make? What other support do I need? The question is about global warming and I presented the average temperatures since 1979. You've not show where my data is in error or incorrect. The people being embarassed are those who continue to cling to this debunked myth of man-made global climate change. As more and more data is compiled we find this is simply not a phenomenon which is happening.

Now let me just add this... I am an environmentalist. I love the environment and think we should be proactive in doing things to clean up the environment. I don't want corporations dumping mercury and other toxins into our rivers and estuaries. I think we should shut that down completely. In 1993, I led a petition drive on behalf of Friends of the Chattahoochee to stop Atlanta from dumping raw sewage in the river, so I am also an activist.

From MY perspective, what you Warmer Nuts are doing is single-handedly destroying the environmental movement in America. It's sad for me to watch people immerse themselves in their own ignorance this way. And it all seems to be politically-centered, not really a matter of what the facts are.

 

[elektra]

I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.

CO2 is used in industry to control the quality while making breads, which gives us better food, meaning we can feed more people. Democrats in California have taxed the use of CO2, as a pollutant?

Flour Dough Cooling Systems for the Baking Industry Praxair Inc.

FLOUR & DOUGH COOLING SYSTEMS FOR THE BAKING INDUSTRY

• Share
  
• Print

Mixing consistency in every batch
Optimum dough temperature is critical to any bakery operation. Our specially designed flour and dough cooling systems provide precise, easy-to-operate methods to achieve your required temperature. Our systems use cryogens, either carbon dioxide or nitrogen, to automatically cool your product.

With direct cryogen injection, you can maintain precise control of the temperature of your flour and dough products, resulting in optimum product quality. Additionally, the use of our fully-automated systems eliminates potential human error involved in the manual addition of ice, thus providing for a reduction in labor costs, as well as consistency of batches regardless of seasonal temperature variations, batch size or production levels. Cost-effectively achieve the product quality you desire every time with Praxair’s flour and dough cooling systems.

How old are you, 9?

How old am I, how about how smart are you, that is the best you can do? Seriously, what kind of person compares people to children, I guess if you are dumb, you would think children are dumb.

Seriously, if you must compare me to a child, you are not smart, not at all, hence I doubt you really could ever understand that Dry Ice is pure CO2, and that CO2 is used in industry because its cold, cryogenic, cryogenic, that is like Science is right?

Well let me put it another since you obviously a super genius, exactly how much gravity (in g's) would be required to compress CO2 in the atmosphere to point where it actually becomes a cooling agent and how long do you suppose life will survive under those conditions.
Yes I believe you are a child or remarkably uneducated. I blame it on the CO2 you've been huffing.

And as I point out, it is only the MORON who can only compare someone they are denigrating to child.

How about this, Super Idiot. It would be impossible to compress the very tiny amount of CO2 in our atmosphere into a liquid.

Seeings how you got all the education here, by your own declarations, tell us how much CO2 would need to rise, and how much atmospheric pressure would be required to compress CO2, into a liquid.

I would try 300 divided by 14, give or take.

Dry Ice Making Equipment Making Dry Ice Dry Ice Machines

MANUFACTURING DRY ICE Machines and Storage Containers

Dry ice manufacturing starts with liquid carbon dioxide held under pressure (300 psi) in bulk storage vessels. To begin making dry ice, the liquid C02, is sent through an expansion valve into an empty chamber where under normal atmospheric pressure it flashes into C02 gas. This change from liquid to gas causes the temperature to drop quickly. About 46% of the gas will freeze into dry ice snow. The rest of the C02 gas, is released into the atmosphere or recovered to be used again. The dry ice snow is then collected in a chamber where it is compressed into blocks, or various sized pellets to meet customers requirements. The denser the dry ice is, the longer it will last, the easier it is to handle, and the better it will perform when blast cleaning.

 

[elektra]

First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.

Second, it's only air temps, and disregards the relentless ocean warming.

Third, your data wasn't NOAA. It was RSS satellite data, known by everyone to have an erroneous growing cool bias. But because it says what they want to see, deniers rely on it exclusively, not caring whether it's accurate.

You couldn't know that, of course, as your cult didn't see fit to tell you that. You'd need to look at non-cult sources to know such a thing, and the cult strongly discourages that. The pure ones are not supposed to sully themselves through contact with the outside world.

You could show some integrity and guts now, and call your cult to task for fooling your like that. Or you could run back to them and defend them, much like a battered spouse does. And you're going to choose that latter option. Deniers always do.

We can look at any other temperature data set, and clearly see the strong warming going on. Like this one, from NASA-GISS

Alas, by the rules of your conspiracy cult, any data that disagrees with the conspiracy has to be part of conspiracy, and is thus invalid.

A simpleton graph from the politicized NASA is no way represents the complexity of the "Climate".

Seeings how mamoot is so good at the, "SCIENCE". How about posting the temperatures used to create that, "chart".

mamoot, I say you will not post the actual temperatures recorded, because that would show that there is no Global Warming, just normal weather.

mamoot, post the temperatures, not the graph from a "study".

and about calling people CHERRY PICKERS, is not a graph without the actual temperatures, CHERRY PICKING!

 

[jc456]

Interesting, Boss. So, you state that you have a degree in Science. What Discipline is your degree in? Or are you just another flapyapper making silly claims like ol' Billy Boob?

If you had any knowledge of the ongoing discussion, you would have recognized that graph as from the UAH site of Dr. Spencer. Thus far, I have found your posts noteably lacking in scientific knowledge.

My degree is in Psychology, but as I said, a science degree is not needed to look at a graph showing the actual temperature since 1979 and comprehend there is no global warming happening.

Here's the chart again for those who are too lazy to go back and find it. We can clearly see that since the 1998 El Niño warming event, temps are slightly higher, but they are not rising on average as the warmers predicted. There has been no "warming" for 18 years.

Man did not cause the El Niño event to happen, nor will man cause the next climactic event. We generally have several over the course of a century. These can cause periods of warmer average temps or cooler average temps, and this is expected in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Man cannot change laws of thermodynamics, even with carbon offset taxes.

And repeated posting of the same chart here won't convince the experts. I suggest you try contacting them. As soon as they are convinced, we all will agree with you.

so you have to have someone tell you how to read a graph. Too bad.

 

[jc456]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.

nope!

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.

What silly claims did I make? What other support do I need? The question is about global warming and I presented the average temperatures since 1979. You've not show where my data is in error or incorrect. The people being embarassed are those who continue to cling to this debunked myth of man-made global climate change. As more and more data is compiled we find this is simply not a phenomenon which is happening.

Now let me just add this... I am an environmentalist. I love the environment and think we should be proactive in doing things to clean up the environment. I don't want corporations dumping mercury and other toxins into our rivers and estuaries. I think we should shut that down completely. In 1993, I led a petition drive on behalf of Friends of the Chattahoochee to stop Atlanta from dumping raw sewage in the river, so I am also an activist.

From MY perspective, what you Warmer Nuts are doing is single-handedly destroying the environmental movement in America. It's sad for me to watch people immerse themselves in their own ignorance this way. And it all seems to be politically-centered, not really a matter of what the facts are.

Well, no. It's a financial centered discussion. Virtually all the dissenting voices, and there are pathetically few, are funded and directed by the oil companies, and since the oil companies own a large part of the republican party, they use politics as another tool to prevent any profit loss due to having to clean up their mess. Again, all you have to do is convince the experts you are right, and I'm sure you will have all the support you need.

 

[jc456]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.

First of all, 97% is not a consensus. Second, you are counting among that 97%, those who simply say the global temps are getting warmer but have not said it's being caused by man. Our planet gets warmer and cooler in cycles and has been doing this for billions of years. I've never denied this, nor has anyone else that I am aware of.

It doesn't take "being smarter" than anyone else, all it takes is looking at a graph which shows us the average global temperatures since 1979 and comprehending how to read a graph.

Again, I wish you luck in your endeavors, but only an idiot would go against the agreement of almost every expert in the field without some extraordinary knowledge, and I just don't see your little chart as extraordinary. Of course, if you could show some evidence on that silly charlatan claim, I'm sure many would be happy to reconsider.

so why isn't a 100%. Why are there climate scientist that don't agree. BTW, do you have the list of questions that were used to get the so called consensus? I didn't think so. 75 out 77 scientists. that's all, bubba!!!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

Interesting, Boss. So, you state that you have a degree in Science. What Discipline is your degree in? Or are you just another flapyapper making silly claims like ol' Billy Boob?

If you had any knowledge of the ongoing discussion, you would have recognized that graph as from the UAH site of Dr. Spencer. Thus far, I have found your posts noteably lacking in scientific knowledge.

My degree is in Psychology, but as I said, a science degree is not needed to look at a graph showing the actual temperature since 1979 and comprehend there is no global warming happening.

Here's the chart again for those who are too lazy to go back and find it. We can clearly see that since the 1998 El Niño warming event, temps are slightly higher, but they are not rising on average as the warmers predicted. There has been no "warming" for 18 years.

Man did not cause the El Niño event to happen, nor will man cause the next climactic event. We generally have several over the course of a century. These can cause periods of warmer average temps or cooler average temps, and this is expected in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Man cannot change laws of thermodynamics, even with carbon offset taxes.

And repeated posting of the same chart here won't convince the experts. I suggest you try contacting them. As soon as they are convinced, we all will agree with you.

so you have to have someone tell you how to read a graph. Too bad.

One little graph is easy if that is all the information available. Interpreting that graph in relationship to the massive amounts of other data available on the subject is more than either you or I are capable of.

 

[jc456]

Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.

What silly claims did I make? What other support do I need? The question is about global warming and I presented the average temperatures since 1979. You've not show where my data is in error or incorrect. The people being embarassed are those who continue to cling to this debunked myth of man-made global climate change. As more and more data is compiled we find this is simply not a phenomenon which is happening.

Now let me just add this... I am an environmentalist. I love the environment and think we should be proactive in doing things to clean up the environment. I don't want corporations dumping mercury and other toxins into our rivers and estuaries. I think we should shut that down completely. In 1993, I led a petition drive on behalf of Friends of the Chattahoochee to stop Atlanta from dumping raw sewage in the river, so I am also an activist.

From MY perspective, what you Warmer Nuts are doing is single-handedly destroying the environmental movement in America. It's sad for me to watch people immerse themselves in their own ignorance this way. And it all seems to be politically-centered, not really a matter of what the facts are.

notice how he has nothing to contribute? No names of the 97%? Where are the names, let's look them all up and see how they believe today. Naw, they never have anything of value to add. Just insulting little children. and, while we're at it, ask him for that experiment that demonstrates that 120PPM of CO2 affects temperatures? He ain't got one. Ask him,

 

[jc456]

Interesting, Boss. So, you state that you have a degree in Science. What Discipline is your degree in? Or are you just another flapyapper making silly claims like ol' Billy Boob?

If you had any knowledge of the ongoing discussion, you would have recognized that graph as from the UAH site of Dr. Spencer. Thus far, I have found your posts noteably lacking in scientific knowledge.

My degree is in Psychology, but as I said, a science degree is not needed to look at a graph showing the actual temperature since 1979 and comprehend there is no global warming happening.

Here's the chart again for those who are too lazy to go back and find it. We can clearly see that since the 1998 El Niño warming event, temps are slightly higher, but they are not rising on average as the warmers predicted. There has been no "warming" for 18 years.

Man did not cause the El Niño event to happen, nor will man cause the next climactic event. We generally have several over the course of a century. These can cause periods of warmer average temps or cooler average temps, and this is expected in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Man cannot change laws of thermodynamics, even with carbon offset taxes.

And repeated posting of the same chart here won't convince the experts. I suggest you try contacting them. As soon as they are convinced, we all will agree with you.

so you have to have someone tell you how to read a graph. Too bad.

One little graph is easy if that is all the information available. Interpreting that graph in relationship to the massive amounts of other data available on the subject is more than either you or I are capable of.

ah, but you can't deny that the data isn't altered, can you?

 

[jc456]

Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.

What silly claims did I make? What other support do I need? The question is about global warming and I presented the average temperatures since 1979. You've not show where my data is in error or incorrect. The people being embarassed are those who continue to cling to this debunked myth of man-made global climate change. As more and more data is compiled we find this is simply not a phenomenon which is happening.

Now let me just add this... I am an environmentalist. I love the environment and think we should be proactive in doing things to clean up the environment. I don't want corporations dumping mercury and other toxins into our rivers and estuaries. I think we should shut that down completely. In 1993, I led a petition drive on behalf of Friends of the Chattahoochee to stop Atlanta from dumping raw sewage in the river, so I am also an activist.

From MY perspective, what you Warmer Nuts are doing is single-handedly destroying the environmental movement in America. It's sad for me to watch people immerse themselves in their own ignorance this way. And it all seems to be politically-centered, not really a matter of what the facts are.

Well, no. It's a financial centered discussion. Virtually all the dissenting voices, and there are pathetically few, are funded and directed by the oil companies, and since the oil companies own a large part of the republican party, they use politics as another tool to prevent any profit loss due to having to clean up their mess. Again, all you have to do is convince the experts you are right, and I'm sure you will have all the support you need.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.

Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.

First of all, 97% is not a consensus. Second, you are counting among that 97%, those who simply say the global temps are getting warmer but have not said it's being caused by man. Our planet gets warmer and cooler in cycles and has been doing this for billions of years. I've never denied this, nor has anyone else that I am aware of.

It doesn't take "being smarter" than anyone else, all it takes is looking at a graph which shows us the average global temperatures since 1979 and comprehending how to read a graph.

Again, I wish you luck in your endeavors, but only an idiot would go against the agreement of almost every expert in the field without some extraordinary knowledge, and I just don't see your little chart as extraordinary. Of course, if you could show some evidence on that silly charlatan claim, I'm sure many would be happy to reconsider.

so why isn't a 100%. Why are there climate scientist that don't agree. BTW, do you have the list of questions that were used to get the so called consensus? I didn't think so. 75 out 77 scientists. that's all, bubba!!!!!

You won't get 100% agreement that we went to the moon. There will always be a few who just don't see it. Even with your small count of 75%, which is laughable, if you had 3/4 of the doctors in the country telling you that you had cancer but only 1/4 said you didn't, would you just not worry about it?