Climate change deniers = creationists

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

The laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational.

And the interpretation of the data remains subject to the prejudice of who's writing the check

Big oil and big coal write big checks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Science, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism.

Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly.

You overstate the problems by an order of magnitude. The preponderance of evidence still shows, by far, that the planet is warming. The shrill trumpeting by the deniers about a few bad apples has deafened you.

The laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational.

Here is another theory that has been proposed . speaking of thermodynamics.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/community/climate-change/2648-thermodynamics.html
so before we ruin our economy with the socialist agenda of taxing carbon, lets really find out the facts.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Yes, sounds like Liberals

Gosh. I wish I was that sharp.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Science, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism.

Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly.

You overstate the problems by an order of magnitude. The preponderance of evidence still shows, by far, that the planet is warming. The shrill trumpeting by the deniers about a few bad apples has deafened you.

The laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational.

You know dude. few have argued the planet is/was warming
The reason is the debate

Got it

but you "deem" you got it nailed huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Yes, sounds like Liberals

Gosh. I wish I was that sharp.

You should
You can be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RackJR 0]

Quote

Here is another theory that has been proposed . speaking of thermodynamics.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/...-thermodynamics.htmlWink
so before we ruin our economy with the socialist agenda of taxing carbon, lets really find out the facts.

did you actually read this article? 6 spelling errors in a 1 page document. massive, unsubstantiated assumptions that the author admits will cast doubts on any conclusions. but you read the conclusion and think that makes it a relevant source for discussion? this isn't "finding out the facts".

i guess if the bible seems credible, this guy must sound like ironclad certainty.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Science, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism.

Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly.

You overstate the problems by an order of magnitude. The preponderance of evidence still shows, by far, that the planet is warming. The shrill trumpeting by the deniers about a few bad apples has deafened you.

The laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational.

I cringe at the tenor of this discussion. When someone uses the term "denier" in context, I read "heretic" and thus call the source into question.

Of all people, I would consider you to be the one most sensitive to the distinction between the disciplines of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer, yet you make reference to the one which is of secondary importance to this discussion.

As far as the thermodynamic status of our planet goes, we are, indeed, one factor among many. To suggest, however, that we are the single prevailing factor requires Comic Book Science (tm), Blind Faith (r), arrogance, ignorance, or some combination of these. Contending that we have no influence at all is just as bad.

My objection to the whole algore thing is that it is a serious distraction to the very real and immediate problems we face. Overpopulation is more of a threat to survival of our species than "climate change" by an order of magnitude - though both are ultimately self-correcting.

I immediately discount anyone that talks of "saving our planet." Long-term survival of our species is more to the point; the planet has repeatedly come through much worse than we can dish out, and it's still here.

You are free to go back to your bickering, but I am dismayed by the tone taken by you and billvon. I would have given the both of you a bit more credit, but you both appear to think that the odious nature of those who identifiy themselves as "conservatives" makes those who identify themselves as "liberals" somehow better. I am grossly underwhelmed by all but a very few of either, and can't imagine anyone with a three digit IQ concluding otherwise.

Henry Mencken once said "for every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong." The whole AGW debate seems but a case in point.


Unnaturally blue skies,

Winsor

[kallend 1,644]

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

Sweet - so, you can tell us how all that manmade CO2 got into the atmosphere back in 1000AD.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Sweet - so, you can tell us how all that manmade CO2 got into the atmosphere back in 1000AD.

1 - that question will backfire on you as Kallend has first hand knowledge of the times

2 - Anyway, you don't want to know the answer, hint - that period was known as the "Great Bean Eating Era"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Great Bean Eating Era"

That would be methane instead of CO2.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 187]

Quote

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

Agreed, but this is orthogonal to the point.

First, "Thermodynamics" is a misnomer; "Thermostatics" would be a more appropriate moniker. The study of the dynamics of heat is "Heat Transfer." The two disciplines are related but hardly interchangeable.

Second, even though we may agree that the effect upon which the AGW crowd is given to persevorate is, indeed, a factor, I dispute the contention that the measures proposed constitute a solution. Eine Schlimmverbesserung (it unfortunately does not translate well) is more like it.

The bottom line is that I dispute the relative significance of the issue, and contend that, given that it is a problem, what is proposed does not constitute a solution.


Warm blue skies,

Winsor

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

Sweet - so, you can tell us how all that manmade CO2 got into the atmosphere back in 1000AD.

Since no-one has claimed that humans are the sole source of atmospheric CO2, this appears to be another one of your straw-men. You just can't help yourself, can you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Quote

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

Not to mention the negative feedback coefficients. But you cant (or wont) rap your brain around that one can you?

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

Not to mention the negative feedback coefficients. But you cant (or wont) rap your brain around that one can you?

Name me one natural system with a negative feedback coefficient less than -1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Since no-one has claimed that humans are the sole source of atmospheric CO2, this appears to be another one of your straw-men. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Never made the claim that man was sole source of all CO2, but there's plenty of mentions by you and billvon that man is causing the current warming.

I figured that, being the climate expert you are (since you REGULARLY denigrate anyone that dares speak against it as being stupid), that you'd be able to show where man caused the warming around 1000AD.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Since no-one has claimed that humans are the sole source of atmospheric CO2, this appears to be another one of your straw-men. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Never made the claim that man was sole source of all CO2, but there's plenty of mentions by you and billvon that man is causing the current warming.

I figured that, being the climate expert you are (since you REGULARLY denigrate anyone that dares speak against it as being stupid), that you'd be able to show where man caused the warming around 1000AD.

As BelgianDraft wrote in a different thread, you really do ignore what others write. There's little point discussing anything with you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

As BelgianDraft wrote in a different thread, you really do ignore what others write. There's little point discussing anything with you.

When the only responses you have are calling my intelligence into question or strawman arguments, then yes, there's probably little point to you staying in the discussion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 388]

The one that is causing global cooling, in spite of all of the co2 we are adding to the air.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

The one that is causing global cooling, in spite of all of the co2 we are adding to the air.

FAIL. Do you even know what it means, or are you parroting?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The absorption spectrum of atmospheric gases hasn't changed, the rate at which humans put CO2 into the atmosphere is well known, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising in excellent correspondence. The only real uncertainties are the feedback coefficients.

Not to mention the negative feedback coefficients. But you cant (or wont) rap your brain around that one can you?

Name me one natural system with a negative feedback coefficient less than -1

Is it a banana?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[maxmadmax 8]

"The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed."

Do you know what the laws of thermodynamics are Al Gore?

I really don't think so.

Don't go away mad....just go away!

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

"The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed."

Do you know what the laws of thermodynamics are Al Gore?

I really don't think so.

Do you know how to punctuate a sentence?

Obviously not, but hardly relevant to the thread.

And Al Gore's knowledge of thermodynamics is not relevant either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[futuredivot 0]

Good thing about you-if you can't make a point, you can always point a finger.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Good thing about you-if you can't make a point, you can always point a finger.

Irony score 10/10

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.