Faux science of global warming doesn't pass legal scrutiny.

#51
#51
BTW, I don't "compress" anything. I simply accept the data and a different interpretation of it than you do. Nothing outside of the ToE model and naturalistic presuppositions requires the earth to be millions/billions of years old.
 
#53
#53
Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Rise 3.2% This Year, 1.6% in 2011, EIA Says - Bloomberg

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy use will climb 3.2 percent this year on economic growth and higher use of fossil fuels to generate electricity, the Energy Information Administration forecast today.
Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide emissions are likely to increase this year due to “forecast economic growth combined with increased use of coal and natural gas in the electric power sector,” according to the EIA. Emissions in 2011 will likely climb because of higher coal use in the electricity industry and greater demand for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in the transportation sector.
Click to expand...

I am not a big fan of Coal, but love me some NatGas
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
BeecherVol said:
Stop breathing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually that is pretty much it. There is not much we can do, as it is out success as a species throughout the world that is the crux of the matter. All we can do is be aware of it and try to protect the pristine areas that are left. Many projections are now showing the human population to plateau out over the next several decades at less than 8 billion, and people are much more aware of the natural world than before.
 
#55
#55
#56
#56
sjt18 said:
BTW, I don't "compress" anything. I simply accept the data and a different interpretation of it than you do. Nothing outside of the ToE model and naturalistic presuppositions requires the earth to be millions/billions of years old.
Click to expand...

Okay, how are you not "compressing' the record when we have ice cores with annual laminations going back hundreds of thousands of years?



As far as your other post, I was just asking a question. No matter how you view the record, it was hotter during the time of the dinosaurs than it is now. Of course, we didn't have a continent at one of the poles altering atmospheric and oceanic circulation either. It might as well have been a different planet, in terms of tectonic configuration. The last couple million years, and specifically the last few Milankovitch cycles, are pertinent to modern climate.
 
#57
#57
IPorange said:
'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty - CNN.com

Huh, I am sensing a pattern here. It's almost as if all this criticism is not passing legal scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I never click on the Communist News network, it only encourages them.

Obviously they are spinning the story.

What was the charge Mann was not cleared of??

Equally obvious was the effort by Penn St academians to smooth things over, lest they have to return many millions of misspent dollars received over the years for research.

While you may be 'sensing' a pattern, I'm 'thinking' I have seen a definite pattern for at least a half century.

"Blame it on mankind", especially the industrial revolution and the economic inequities that came during this time.

For the record the condition of mankind is far better today than before the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Wonder if that little endangered snail in the Snake River has survived after being the cause of the envirowacko edict that ranchers couldn't water their stock or sportsmen couldn't trout fish there??

Did the trout feed on the snail and bring about their extinction?

What does it matter if one rare snail survives or not in the grand scheme of things??






IPorange said:
It's all about scale of time. We know that hundreds of species have gone extinct and hundreds more heading towards it in the last few hundred years alone to the success of humans, the modification of their environment (draining swamps, fragmenting wilderness, pollution pressures) and even direct interaction with various species and ecosystems. Compared to previous mass extinction events that occurred over larger spans of time, we are well on our way.
Click to expand...

Now we are talking semantics.

When I refer to 'mass extinction events', I am talking about when there were cataclysmic events that made thousands of species extinct in a matter of a few short years.

Your theory works well for the guilt ridden among us.

Your theory also fits in well with marxist ideas such as government should have total control of all means of production and should redistribute wealth.

Cataclysmic mass extinctions happened in realatively short periods and had noting at all to do with mankind but life on Earth has gone on regardless.

One of many possible examples of what I'm talking about is that geoloical research has shown that southern England went from what it is like today with the Thames never being frozen over to being frozen over year round in as short a period as about twenty years.

No one really knows what caused this, it is surmised that perhaps the sun went into time out for a while and ceased to warm the Earth as normal or perhaps there was a gigantic vocanic explosion or perhaps we entered a phase in our orbit through the galaxy in which there was a great amount of space dust that cast a haze between the Earth and the sun that cooled us dramatically in a fairly short period of time.

Basically I think most people who constantly stand on the panic button should be committed to some mental institution for therapy to counteract their paranoia.
 
#58
#58
IPorange said:
Okay, how are you not "compressing' the record when we have ice cores with annual laminations going back hundreds of thousands of years?.
Click to expand...

No. We actually have laminations. They could be annual or they could be thawing and freezing caused by anomalous events... and before you poo-pooh that as "unsupported conjecture"... your side does it all the time to make the facts fit the story.
 
#59
#59
sjt18 said:
No. We actually have laminations. They could be annual or they could be thawing and freezing caused by anomalous events... and before you poo-pooh that as "unsupported conjecture"... your side does it all the time to make the facts fit the story.
Click to expand...

But if the laminations are from anomalous events and not from seasonal ones, how can you be sure of the length of time at all? Why are the accumulations between them so consistent and uniform, if they are "anomalous?" Why do the most recent laminations match up perfectly as annual ones?

I'm trying to understand how you can work so hard to make this square peg fit into a round hole, but then poo-pooh the alternative explanation as just conjecture. Are you saying you admit your "side" as you called it use unsupported conjecture to fit the story? I doubt that.
 
#61
#61
#62
#62
I feel like we've been through this: we can exchange weather highs and lows all day long and it doesn't prove anything in terms of global climate.
 
#65
#65
IPorange said:
No no, if it doesn't count if it works against their argument.
Click to expand...

We have both talked climate change on Party Chat so you obviously know I have nothing to offer more than you do. This is kind of your specialty. But I love reading your arguments with people on here.
 
#69
#69
TennTradition said:
Ahh...

I used to fool around with xbox live, but that was a very short time. For some reason, my router kicked my xbox off a year or two ago and I haven't cared enough to fix it. People have serious conversations on there?
Click to expand...

Sometimes. If you are on with a core group of people over and over for a while, you get to know them just as well as if you were all visiting the same bar.
 
#70
#70
TennTradition said:
Ahh...

I used to fool around with xbox live, but that was a very short time. For some reason, my router kicked my xbox off a year or two ago and I haven't cared enough to fix it. People have serious conversations on there?
Click to expand...

We were in a party together like two or three times a week. Sometimes for hours at a time. I know IP's deepest and darkest secrets. I gave him relationship advice. I pissed him off plenty of times.
 
#71
#71
volball625 said:
We were in a party together like two or three times a week. Sometimes for hours at a time. I know IP's deepest and darkest secrets. I gave him relationship advice. I pissed him off plenty of times.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have any deep and dark secrets, known or not. Otherwise, truth.
 
#73
#73
IPorange said:
Sometimes. If you are on with a core group of people over and over for a while, you get to know them just as well as if you were all visiting the same bar.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting...I may have to try to actually get the connection working just to see if I am missing something :). I didn't really have time for xbox as it was, so I'm afraid that will continue to be the case...at least for the next 3 months.
 
#74
#74
IPorange said:
The argument that CO2 is not a pollutant is purely an argument of semantics.

In any event, I only bumped this thread because the investigation was over.
Click to expand...

Semantics? A matter of semantics seems to me like it is an effort to distort or obfuscate what the word "pollution" means. Let's us muddy the waters of the conversation or the debate by introducing a new definition of a politically hot topic/issue.
 
#75
#75
Rasputin_Vol said:
Semantics? A matter of semantics seems to me like it is an effort to distort or obfuscate what the word "pollution" means. Let's us muddy the waters of the conversation or the debate by introducing a new definition of a politically hot topic/issue.
Click to expand...

It's right in the definition of the word. Disputing that meaning of the word "pollution" so as not to include increased concentrations of naturally occurring substances is actually the argument for obfuscating the definition of pollution. Look it up (although I already did in this thread). Several dictionaries even mention CO2 SPECIFICALLY, as this is an old and tired argument.

You said no one ever explained it to you, well now it has been twice (by me, and by TT). Yet still, you try to deny the meaning of the damn word. To what purpose?

I'd enjoy hearing you argue with a surgeon about what constitutes pollution in the human body. They'd love to hear how naturally occurring bodily fluids and substances don't constitute pollution when they leak into a surgery site.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top