Barclays CLOSES Its Carbon Trading Desk In the US

[skookerasbil]

Dead last of Americans concerns.


Dead Last! Pew Poll: Global warming finishes 22nd of 22 'top policy priorities of 2012': 'A quarter of Americans now find climate change a top concern, down from almost 4 in 10 in 2007' | Climate Depot


LOL......but still the internet OCD's will attempt to spin this!!!

 

[konradv]

Nobody cares about CO2 anymore. Only the lefty internet OCD's havent got the memo.

That's not proof, either!

Exactly my point s0n...........its all about the proof and in recent years the public perception is that one side has failed in epic fashion.

Public preception isn't proof either. It's just a measure of how the skeptics/deniers are muddying the issue. NEXT!

 

[bripat9643]

I stand corrected, second stupidest!

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

No I don't need to prove that.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

 

[konradv]

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

No I don't need to prove that.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

 

[bripat9643]

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

No I don't need to prove that.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

Nope. I'm not making any claims whatsoever. Warmist cult members are claiming the sky is falling. It's their job to prove that claim. I have no obligation to disprove it. Science assumes extraordinary claims are false until they are proven.

 

[konradv]

No I don't need to prove that.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

Nope. I'm not making any claims whatsoever. Warmist cult members are claiming the sky is falling. It's their job to prove that claim. I have no obligation to disprove it. Science assumes extraordinary claims are false until they are proven.

First of all, being silly (SEE BOLD) doesn't help your case. It just makes you look like a nutjob. Secondly, you ARE making an assertion that goes against what we know about the properties of CO2. Therefore, you must either prove the earlier expts. to be defective or prove that somehow Conservation of Energy is overcome. Good luck!

 

[westwall]

I stand corrected, second stupidest!

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

I hate to break the bad news to ya charlie, but it's YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE your case.

Good luck with that.

 

[westwall]

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

Nope. I'm not making any claims whatsoever. Warmist cult members are claiming the sky is falling. It's their job to prove that claim. I have no obligation to disprove it. Science assumes extraordinary claims are false until they are proven.

First of all, being silly (SEE BOLD) doesn't help your case. It just makes you look like a nutjob. Secondly, you ARE making an assertion that goes against what we know about the properties of CO2. Therefore, you must either prove the earlier expts. to be defective or prove that somehow Conservation of Energy is overcome. Good luck!

He's just mimicing one of your leading cult members, trolling blunder.

 

[westwall]

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

No I don't need to prove that.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

WRONG! You are the group claiming that adding CO2 will RAISE the temperatures. It is YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE YOUR CASE. Remember, way back in 1988 Hansen made all those claims? Remember that? Now, the CO2 has risen FAR above his worst case scenario and the temps are the same now as they were then...you remember that little problem of his?



What planet are you from again?

 

[skookerasbil]

That's not proof, either!

Exactly my point s0n...........its all about the proof and in recent years the public perception is that one side has failed in epic fashion.

Public preception isn't proof either. It's just a measure of how the skeptics/deniers are muddying the issue. NEXT!

Public perception is everything s0n...........everything..........which is why unless Nome Alaska has a 50 degree spell in the dead of winter, all this CO2 stuff is nothing more than science hobby in 2012.

 

[skookerasbil]

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

I hate to break the bad news to ya charlie, but it's YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE your case.

Good luck with that.

Geez West.......we gotta get the fcukk out of this place bro or we're gonna turn into mental cases ourselves. Got some serious connect the dots issues going on in here.........which is why sometimes you'll see me take a break from coming in here. In my field, I occassionally have to spend a few days on psych wards doing assessments so I get to have some very interesting conversations with people whose setting screws are fucked. You walk away thinking, "Holy shit that guy is so fucked!!!"

Thats how I feel in this forum occassionally. Its fascinating on some level, but too much debating those who will never be able to connect the dots......not healthy for the old brain.

 

[konradv]

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

I hate to break the bad news to ya charlie, but it's YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE your case.

Good luck with that.

Prove what? I'm not the one denying that CO2 can absorb and re-emit IR. If that's not what's being denied, then you have to show how Conservation of Energy isn't being violated. WHAT EXACTLY DO I NEED TO PROVE???

 

[konradv]

No I don't need to prove that.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

WRONG! You are the group claiming that adding CO2 will RAISE the temperatures. It is YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE YOUR CASE. Remember, way back in 1988 Hansen made all those claims? Remember that? Now, the CO2 has risen FAR above his worst case scenario and the temps are the same now as they were then...you remember that little problem of his?

Don't give a damn about Hansen and your problems with him. On my planet when a molecule absorbs a photon and then re-emits it, it has a 50% chance of returning to earth. What YOU need to prove is that the re-emission of IR does not contribute to warming. Good luck with that!

 

[konradv]

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

I hate to break the bad news to ya charlie, but it's YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE your case.

Good luck with that.

Geez West.......we gotta get the fcukk out of this place bro or we're gonna turn into mental cases ourselves. Got some serious connect the dots issues going on in here.........which is why sometimes you'll see me take a break from coming in here. In my field, I occassionally have to spend a few days on psych wards doing assessments so I get to have some very interesting conversations with people whose setting screws are fucked. You walk away thinking, "Holy shit that guy is so fucked!!!"

Thats how I feel in this forum occassionally. Its fascinating on some level, but too much debating those who will never be able to connect the dots......not healthy for the old brain.

Look who's talking about mental cases!!!

 

[westwall]

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

I hate to break the bad news to ya charlie, but it's YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE your case.

Good luck with that.

Geez West.......we gotta get the fcukk out of this place bro or we're gonna turn into mental cases ourselves. Got some serious connect the dots issues going on in here.........which is why sometimes you'll see me take a break from coming in here. In my field, I occassionally have to spend a few days on psych wards doing assessments so I get to have some very interesting conversations with people whose setting screws are fucked. You walk away thinking, "Holy shit that guy is so fucked!!!"

Thats how I feel in this forum occassionally. Its fascinating on some level, but too much debating those who will never be able to connect the dots......not healthy for the old brain.

No worries! This is entertainemnt for me! I just love to watch these clowns reverse themselves and twist themselves into knots trying to convince us they didn't say what they said, or mean what they mean.

I do this when i need a break from working on the house.

 

[westwall]

Yes, I do. YOU'RE asserting that added CO2 will have no effect on temps. "He who asserts, must also prove."

WRONG! You are the group claiming that adding CO2 will RAISE the temperatures. It is YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE YOUR CASE. Remember, way back in 1988 Hansen made all those claims? Remember that? Now, the CO2 has risen FAR above his worst case scenario and the temps are the same now as they were then...you remember that little problem of his?

Don't give a damn about Hansen and your problems with him. On my planet when a molecule absorbs a photon and then re-emits it, it has a 50% chance of returning to earth. What YOU need to prove is that the re-emission of IR does not contribute to warming. Good luck with that!

Which planet is that exactly? On this planet the evidence seems to be going the other way. Otherwise all that CO2 in the air would have had an effect. Something it hasn't had.
Also you need to explain that pesky physical law that doesn't allow more energy to go into a system then is manufactured either through physical work or chemical work.

Something about a perpetual motion machine I think it's called. Yep, you definately need to look at your math there.

And you SHOULD care about Hansen. Your whole religion is based on his sermons. He's kind of important to your religion.

 

[konradv]

WRONG! You are the group claiming that adding CO2 will RAISE the temperatures. It is YOU WHO NEED TO PROVE YOUR CASE. Remember, way back in 1988 Hansen made all those claims? Remember that? Now, the CO2 has risen FAR above his worst case scenario and the temps are the same now as they were then...you remember that little problem of his?

Don't give a damn about Hansen and your problems with him. On my planet when a molecule absorbs a photon and then re-emits it, it has a 50% chance of returning to earth. What YOU need to prove is that the re-emission of IR does not contribute to warming. Good luck with that!

Which planet is that exactly? On this planet the evidence seems to be going the other way. Otherwise all that CO2 in the air would have had an effect. Something it hasn't had.
Also you need to explain that pesky physical law that doesn't allow more energy to go into a system then is manufactured either through physical work or chemical work.

Something about a perpetual motion machine I think it's called. Yep, you definately need to look at your math there.

And you SHOULD care about Hansen. Your whole religion is based on his sermons. He's kind of important to your religion.

I'm afraid you've goone 'wirebender' looney tunes. Why are you talking about work? Quit changing the subject. You need to answer the Conservation of Energy question and cut out the irrelevancies. I've never said you get more work out of the system. We never even got past the energy question! How could we possibly be talking about work, when you can't even acknowledge that extra CO2 means extra absorbed IR?

 

[westwall]

Don't give a damn about Hansen and your problems with him. On my planet when a molecule absorbs a photon and then re-emits it, it has a 50% chance of returning to earth. What YOU need to prove is that the re-emission of IR does not contribute to warming. Good luck with that!

Which planet is that exactly? On this planet the evidence seems to be going the other way. Otherwise all that CO2 in the air would have had an effect. Something it hasn't had.
Also you need to explain that pesky physical law that doesn't allow more energy to go into a system then is manufactured either through physical work or chemical work.

Something about a perpetual motion machine I think it's called. Yep, you definately need to look at your math there.

And you SHOULD care about Hansen. Your whole religion is based on his sermons. He's kind of important to your religion.

I'm afraid you've goone 'wirebender' looney tunes. Why are you talking about work? Quit changing the subject. You need to answer the Conservation of Energy question and cut out the irrelevancies. I've never said you get more work out of the system. We never even got past the energy question! How could we possibly be talking about work, when you can't even acknowledge that extra CO2 means extra absorbed IR?

Because that's not what the conservation of energy means dear boy. Energy is created by the Sun. The energy impacts the atmosphere. An interaction occurs as the energy from the Sun penetrates the atmosphere. Energy is lost at that point. The sunlight strikes the ground. Energy is lost in the interaction. The sunlight is converted to long wave IR. Energy is lost. The IR interacts with the atmosphere on its way out. Energy is lost. Every time there is an interaction with your unit of energy it loses a little bit.

The point, dear boy, is you have no idea what the "conservation of energy" means. I just explained the various interactions. You'll note please that every time there is an interaction, energy is lost. That's because the energy of the Universe is reducing down to a little point called entropy. What the "conservation of energy" means is you can't get something for nothing. I am simplifying this greatly for you as you are not educated enough to understand the basics, but that is what is meant by "conservation of energy".

That's why the interaction you claim occurs, can't. It violates that little physical law that says you can't get something for nothing.