400 ppm CO2

[gslack]

Gslack -

And it's back to your usual gibberish, abuse and lies.

I'll leave you to it.

uh-huh, everytime you pull this crap on me, or I see you pull it on somebody, I'm gonna re-post the truth and fix it...

Your game is done junior..

 

[skookerasbil]

nutter fAiL.........

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

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Drove around a little extra this weekend.

 

[boedicca]

Mr H -

Here is what Wiki has anyway -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels. However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute. The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently you didn't bother to read this Wikipedia entry. It goes on to say:

However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above).


What you anti-oil types cry up as subsidies are mostly the oil companies being subject to the same tax code as all other companies.

 

[Saigon]

Bodiccea -

Um....why would anyone imagine that only oil compaines could receive subsidies?

Did you see any suggest that?

Who is anti-oil?

I think you may have missed the point here - industries like coaland oil have received MORE subsidies than renewables in the past 20 years or so.

 

[westwall]

Bodiccea -

Um....why would anyone imagine that only oil compaines could receive subsidies?

Did you see any suggest that?

Who is anti-oil?

I think you may have missed the point here - industries like coaland oil have received MORE subsidies than renewables in the past 20 years or so.

Why you, you are anti-oil...and anti anything that encourages freedom.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Bodiccea -

Um....why would anyone imagine that only oil compaines could receive subsidies?

Did you see any suggest that?

Who is anti-oil?

I think you may have missed the point here - industries like coaland oil have received MORE subsidies than renewables in the past 20 years or so.

so what

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bodiccea -

Um....why would anyone imagine that only oil compaines could receive subsidies?

Did you see any suggest that?

Who is anti-oil?

I think you may have missed the point here - industries like coaland oil have received MORE subsidies than renewables in the past 20 years or so.

Depreciation and write-offs aren't "Subsidies"

Fail

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1750 to 1875 ppb of CH4. A forcing equal to 70 to 100 ppm of CH2. So we are looking at the equivalent of 470 to 525 ppm of CO2. Folks, there ain't no turning back now.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)

Then you'll stop whining?

 

[skookerasbil]

Drove around a little extra this weekend.

The warmist k00ks gonna hate your ass bro.......

 

[Saigon]

Is anyone going to suggest that there is not a link between poor literacy and climate denial?

Five posters in a row who completely fail to address the topic - and not one of whom can manage a proper sentence.

 

[westwall]

Is anyone going to suggest that there is not a link between poor literacy and climate denial?

Five posters in a row who completely fail to address the topic - and not one of whom can manage a proper sentence.

Not according to a study done by one of the warmist groups. Much to their chagrin it turns out that sceptics are BETTER EDUCATED AND HAVE A HIGHER UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC MATTERS THAN GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS.


Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

It's a shame no literate Deniers grace this board.

 

[gslack]

Westwall -

It's a shame no literate Deniers grace this board.

Nice, you just asked for people to debate the topic then waste 2 posts to do noting but flame a poster.. How old are you again? 10?

Practice what you preach..

 

[MisterBeale]

Westwall -

It's a shame no literate Deniers grace this board.

Shame on you. . . .

 

[Old Rocks]

Is anyone going to suggest that there is not a link between poor literacy and climate denial?

Five posters in a row who completely fail to address the topic - and not one of whom can manage a proper sentence.

Not according to a study done by one of the warmist groups. Much to their chagrin it turns out that sceptics are BETTER EDUCATED AND HAVE A HIGHER UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC MATTERS THAN GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS.


Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.

Dan Kahan, Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School said, 'Political controversy over climate change cannot be attributed to the public's limited ability to comprehend science.' he said.

Researchers measured ‘science literacy’ with test items developed by the National Science Foundation.

The questions were simple questions such as 'Electrons are smaller than atoms, true or false?'


They also measured their subjects' ‘numeracy’—that is, their ability to understand quantitative information.

The controversy comes down, in effect, to a conflict over values - and informed individuals are better at fitting the scientific facts, and gaps in our knowledge, to whatever they happen to believe in.

‘In effect,’ Kahan said, ‘ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values.


'At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.’


‘More information can help solve the climate change conflict,’ Kahan said, ‘but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.’


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


First, no direct referance to the supposed article. Second, quotes from a supposed psychologist, again, no direct referance to the context in which the statements were made.

Were I to hand such a writeup into one of my professors claiming it to be proof of anything, he would hang my ass out to dry. If you supposedly quote from an article or study, you state who the authors were, where it was published, and when it was published. This is an excellent example of yellow journalism.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall -

It's a shame no literate Deniers grace this board.

Shame on you. . . .

OK. Show yourself to be scientificly literate and supply us with some articles from peer reviewed journals that show global warming to be a hoax.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets remember......climate change "models" are useless in predicting the future. Even the IPCC has conceeded this as well as many in the science community.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Just keepin' it reeal in here!!!



Also remember.....science is suppossed to be all about "PROOF". The whole Co2 argument is nothing but theory as of 2013.. It is only "science" to those committed to destruction of the capitalistic system ( = all warmists). This is not even debatable.

 

[westwall]

Lets remember......climate change "models" are useless in predicting the future. Even the IPCC has conceeded this as well as many in the science community.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Just keepin' it reeal in here!!!



Also remember.....science is suppossed to be all about "PROOF". The whole Co2 argument is nothing but theory as of 2013.. It is only "science" to those committed to destruction of the capitalistic system ( = all warmists). This is not even debatable.

You're mostly correct...science is concerned with FACTS. Proof is more closely akin to truth, which is the realm of religion.