Ocean acidification

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes it does, but the carbon trading scheme originated from him and that is when you first see governments become interested in the trade and when massive amounts of money first started flowing to the AGW proponents.
Emissions credit trading schemes were not thought up by Ken Lay. SO2

 

[westwall]

Yes I do realise that, it was a poor choice of words on my part, my primary point was that each succeeding theory of physics became the primary avenue of research theryby supplanting that which had existed before it. The others are clearly relevant to their area but are no longer the current theory of physics being researched. Undergrad at the time, though my friend who introduced me to Feynman proceeded to obtain his PhD at Cal Tech in Theoretical Mathmatics.

My interest in physics is the same as my interest in chemistry and biology, paleontology etc. they all have an influence on geology so I try to stay relativley conversant with them all.

I am not a physicist

Really? I had no idea, honestly.

And no, if you knew him, which you clearly never had the priviledge, he did the vast majority of talking.

You do realize, you don't learn physics simply by talking to physicists, right? You do understand that, right?

So did you hang with Feynmann when you were working on your undergrad or your PhD?




And you do realize that quantum physics does not supplant general relativity, right?

 

[westwall]

Technically this is true as I believe it was the US Air Pollution Control Admin that tried them first in the 1960's but, Ken Lay is the person who figured out how to commercialise the market.

And isn't this nicer than yelling epithets at everyone?

Yes it does, but the carbon trading scheme originated from him and that is when you first see governments become interested in the trade and when massive amounts of money first started flowing to the AGW proponents.
Emissions credit trading schemes were not thought up by Ken Lay. SO2

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes I do realise that, it was a poor choice of words on my part, my primary point was that each succeeding theory of physics became the primary avenue of research theryby supplanting that which had existed before it.

Wrong again. General relativity is still being heavily researched right now along with quantum physics. In fact LSU has a huge general relativity department - one of the LIGO telescopes is nearby, and we also have a theory group.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Technically this is true as I believe it was the US Air Pollution Control Admin that tried them first in the 1960's but, Ken Lay is the person who figured out how to commercialise the market.

That's like saying electricity is evil because Enron figured out how to make a more efficient market for it - its bull crap.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's great, but do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

How'd ya manage to rule out water vapor so quickly?

Hold up Crusader, you're moving too quickly for your own good. We first have to make sure you understand the very basic issue. So please, answer the question, yes or no:

Do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

Yes, I understand that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

How'd ya manage to rule out water vapor so quickly?

Hold up Crusader, you're moving too quickly for your own good. We first have to make sure you understand the very basic issue. So please, answer the question, yes or no:

Do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

Yes, I understand that.

Great then!

The reason we know water vapor is not the culprit is that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have not been going up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hold up Crusader, you're moving too quickly for your own good. We first have to make sure you understand the very basic issue. So please, answer the question, yes or no:

Do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

Yes, I understand that.

Great then!

The reason we know water vapor is not the culprit is that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have not been going up.

Did you get that from the Vostok Ice Cores or from the precise measurements they took 50 or 500 years ago?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I already know the answer, Tuba, but it's OK, you can still pretend with Old Rocks and the rest of the Warmers that you had a really good reason to exclude all other variables in favor of CO2

 

[rdean]

Why would anyone debate science with Republicans? To them, "The Great Flood of Noah" IS science. And for "looking back" she was turned to a pillar of "salt", obviously "chemistry". The burning bush - botany.

 

[westwall]

No it doesn't. Before Ken Lay there was no market. After Ken Lay there was a market. What's so hard to understand about that?

Technically this is true as I believe it was the US Air Pollution Control Admin that tried them first in the 1960's but, Ken Lay is the person who figured out how to commercialise the market.

That's like saying electricity is evil because Enron figured out how to make a more efficient market for it - its bull crap.

 

[westwall]

How do we know that? Does anyone even bother to measure it? We know that Kilauea is pumping 4000 gallons of H2O per minute into the amosphere, logically we must assume it doesn't vanish, ergo it must be adding to the water vapor percentage.

Hold up Crusader, you're moving too quickly for your own good. We first have to make sure you understand the very basic issue. So please, answer the question, yes or no:

Do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

Yes, I understand that.

Great then!

The reason we know water vapor is not the culprit is that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have not been going up.

 

[westwall]

How many Doctoral thesis' are coming out of General relativity as opposed to String or M theory? If you want to make a name for yourself and get a Nobel Prize which area of research are you most likely to get it from? The last I checked Quantum work is primarily geared toward confirming what has allready been theorized.

If I am wrong forgive me but most of the Journals I check that is what is going on.

Yes I do realise that, it was a poor choice of words on my part, my primary point was that each succeeding theory of physics became the primary avenue of research theryby supplanting that which had existed before it.

Wrong again. General relativity is still being heavily researched right now along with quantum physics. In fact LSU has a huge general relativity department - one of the LIGO telescopes is nearby, and we also have a theory group.

 

[westwall]

All that shows is that it is Republicans that are actually making the money so that the government can tax them to support the Democrats that are running the government(poorly for the most part..but then the Republicans did no better either) and the Democrats living in the lap of academia but not producing much of anything else. I know I know academia invents things but it is the private sector that figures out how to use it. What will you do when the private sector can no longer support you? Like..oh California for instance?

You revile the very people who support you...that is dumb. Instead you should nurture them and cherish them, because if you don't you may actually have to go to work for real....you know digging ditches and other manual labor like that.

Why would anyone debate science with Republicans? To them, "The Great Flood of Noah" IS science. And for "looking back" she was turned to a pillar of "salt", obviously "chemistry". The burning bush - botany.

 

[gslack]

Why have you all been playing with this ignorant child playing scientist? Seriously, the little idiot couldn't follow the debate in the thread, couldn't follow his own sides claims, didn't understand the CO2 ocean acidification premise he tries to defend, and then couldn't hold a coherent argument for it...

Jesus I have to go away for a few hours to do some work and the place turns into romper room...


Spidermantubal..... You are another douchebag internet scientist..... You and DR douchebag are no more scientists than I am Barrack Obama.... Now go and play grabass together some where....

Trust me on this guys, this is the only way to handle idiotic internet super geniuses. You show their inability to think on multiple levels and across multiple areas, and then you bash them over the head with it.... It's ugly, its not nice, but its the only way.... Entertaining them is empowering them. Thats how this kind of lying grows.... Now please stop empowering liars and weasels who have to claim higher education to debate on here.....

BTW, notice the little idiot didn't mention his education until I pointed out his ignorance? Yeah a PHD candidate wouldn't have let his ignorance show like that.... I work with PHD's, and believe me he wouldn't be allowed to fetch coffee in our offices. We have interns with higher thinking ability than this moron....

 

[Old Rocks]

All that shows is that it is Republicans that are actually making the money so that the government can tax them to support the Democrats that are running the government(poorly for the most part..but then the Republicans did no better either) and the Democrats living in the lap of academia but not producing much of anything else. I know I know academia invents things but it is the private sector that figures out how to use it. What will you do when the private sector can no longer support you? Like..oh California for instance?

You revile the very people who support you...that is dumb. Instead you should nurture them and cherish them, because if you don't you may actually have to go to work for real....you know digging ditches and other manual labor like that.

Why would anyone debate science with Republicans? To them, "The Great Flood of Noah" IS science. And for "looking back" she was turned to a pillar of "salt", obviously "chemistry". The burning bush - botany.

I have had no liberal or progressive on this board demean the fact that I work as a millwright in a steel mill. The only people to do that have been conservatives. Mill rat is one of the nicer things that they have said.

Now a ditch digger in todays economy is hardly a dumb big fellow with a manual shovel. A ditch digger today has to know how to run several differant peices of machinery, some of which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since most small companies hire few engineers, he usually has to establish the grade of the ditch, and make that grade level, with the proper base, whether that be sand or gravel, or some thing else.

Now I do wish you would cease lying about Republicans supporting Democrats. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Most of the Red States recieve more from the Federal Government than they recieve. Most of the Blue States send in more money to the Federal Government than they recieve. So it is the Democrats supporting lazy Republican ass.

 

[gslack]

All that shows is that it is Republicans that are actually making the money so that the government can tax them to support the Democrats that are running the government(poorly for the most part..but then the Republicans did no better either) and the Democrats living in the lap of academia but not producing much of anything else. I know I know academia invents things but it is the private sector that figures out how to use it. What will you do when the private sector can no longer support you? Like..oh California for instance?

You revile the very people who support you...that is dumb. Instead you should nurture them and cherish them, because if you don't you may actually have to go to work for real....you know digging ditches and other manual labor like that.

Why would anyone debate science with Republicans? To them, "The Great Flood of Noah" IS science. And for "looking back" she was turned to a pillar of "salt", obviously "chemistry". The burning bush - botany.

I have had no liberal or progressive on this board demean the fact that I work as a millwright in a steel mill. The only people to do that have been conservatives. Mill rat is one of the nicer things that they have said.

Now a ditch digger in todays economy is hardly a dumb big fellow with a manual shovel. A ditch digger today has to know how to run several differant peices of machinery, some of which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since most small companies hire few engineers, he usually has to establish the grade of the ditch, and make that grade level, with the proper base, whether that be sand or gravel, or some thing else.

Now I do wish you would cease lying about Republicans supporting Democrats. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Most of the Red States recieve more from the Federal Government than they recieve. Most of the Blue States send in more money to the Federal Government than they recieve. So it is the Democrats supporting lazy Republican ass.

Dumazz no one denied you were a millwright, no one cared.... I pointed out your being a millwright doesn't make you a scientist, just as my being a data analyst doesn't make me a scientist with a PHD....

Stop lying for once can you..... Seriously give it a try....

P.S. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, its all the show to keep people bickering.... None of it is anywhere near what they claim, and if you think I am wrong why do we have centrist after centrist despite what they claim before getting elected? Why did Obama's policies toward the bailouts mirror George W. Bush's when all he did was bitch about them before? Why hasn't he gone after the Patriot act when it was such a terrible thing before? Simple; because its a show.... Like wrestling... Its all BS to keep us fighting and quarreling over inconsequentials which we will be getting anyway, while we are slowly marched to a worldwide oligarchy.....

 

[Big Fitz]

Now I do wish you would cease lying about Republicans supporting Democrats. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Most of the Red States recieve more from the Federal Government than they recieve. Most of the Blue States send in more money to the Federal Government than they recieve. So it is the Democrats supporting lazy Republican ass.

I would propose to end this, by getting rid of most federal taxes and services, forcing them on the states as they should constitutionally be. Other than the Military, court systems, transportation infrastructure (to a degree), organizing foreign trade, and printing money... the fed has little it should be doing.

We are a federal nation, not a National government with sub-states. The states are sovereign and as long as they obey the Federal constitution, they can make their state any way they wish. Check out the Commonwealth of Massachusetts constitution to see what it was and how much is being ignored.

This also means AGW legislation (which since it's a fraud shouldn't be passed) should be dealt with at the state level, since the federal government has no legal right to enforce it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, under the Commerce clause, the Federal Government has every right to enforce rules concerning environment. What one state does on environment does not stay in that state. Coal fired generators in Ohio were killing fish in New England's lakes. Chemicals in the Missouri in Montana end up in the Mississippi, and the Gulf Waters.

You are fighting a fight lost 150 years ago.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, under the Commerce clause, the Federal Government has every right to enforce rules concerning environment. What one state does on environment does not stay in that state. Coal fired generators in Ohio were killing fish in New England's lakes. Chemicals in the Missouri in Montana end up in the Mississippi, and the Gulf Waters.

You are fighting a fight lost 150 years ago.

Commerce clause does not allow the government to create markets where there are none or regulate in state commerce. Only an out of control supreme court twisted that clause in the 1930's and it needs to be rectified. You cannot say self sufficiency is able to be regulated by the fed.

Pollution is not an act of trade, therefore it is also constitutionally unregulatable by the fed.

Of course, as we've seen since the 1930's, the federal government has really not cared to much to abiding by original intent, focused instead on twisting it to whattever the hell they want at the time.

Lost the fight though? No. Any decision can be reversed once sanity returns, and we get some originalists back in the SCOTUS.