delegitamizing science

[The T]

I posted this a couple posts ago. Search your minds and really THINK of this folks?

Remember Frank? "ZERO SUM GAME"...

The ONLY WAY to ADD CARBON to what's already here is for a metor/comet HIT. How can MAN ADD to what's already ON the planet?

He cannot. It's impossible.

The AGW Statists will lead us to belive that WE are adding carbon to the planet...

Barring HITS from meteors/comets/Astroids? (Outside sources OTHER THAN MAN)?

How is this possible seeing that every life form is RETURNED to whence it came in the Life/Death Struggle of a CARBON BASED LIFEFORM?

Has this been addressed? *I think NOT*

 

[Si modo]

Oh man, this is too much! So that means that one atom in my fingernail could be one...tiny...universe....

LOL! I get the "Animal House" reference.

Couldn't find it on YouTube.

LOL.

It starts at 4:58.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Tzlh6YjfE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Tzlh6YjfE[/ame]

 

[Screaming Eagle]

The hockey stick divergence problem

The hockey stick divergence problem
Tree growth is sensitive to temperature. Consequently, tree-ring width and tree-ring density, both indicators of tree growth, serve as useful proxies for temperature. By measuring tree growth in ancient trees, scientists can reconstruct temperature records going back over 1000 years. Comparisons with direct temperature measurements back to 1880 show a high correlation with tree growth. However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960. At this point, while temperatures rise, tree-ring width shows a falling trend (a decline, if you will). This divergence between temperature and tree growth is called, imaginatively, the divergence problem.

The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.

Isn't this bullshit based on ONE SINGLE tree? If I went out looking I'm sure I could find a tree to refute this crap.

 

[Toronado3800]

The AGW Statists will lead us to belive that WE are adding carbon to the planet...

Imagine you have a dead tree in your yard. It's standing up 60 foot tall and 3 feet wide but its dead. You have that much wood! You're wife is afraid it will fall and ruin the house so you cut it down and burn the thing. Now you've added a bunch of burnt dead wood to the atmosphere.

Did you really add the burnt up wood to the planet? No. Did you put it in the atmosphere? Yup.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How Real Science Works:

Theory: Combustion of "Fossil Fuels" (sorry, that phrase always cracks me up) causes an increase in CO2 which in turn has caused an increase in temperatures on Earth.

Contra-indicators: The Ice caps on Mars are melting and there's been no observed warming these past 13 years.

Therefore, our Theory sucks and needs to be discarded

Remember Frank? "ZERO SUM GAME"...

The ONLY WAY to ADD CARBON to what's already here is for a metor/comet HIT. How can MAN ADD to what's already ON the planet?

He cannot. It's impossible.

What I don't understand is how plants convert O2 to CO2 yet Earth's atmosphere is 20% Oxygen and only .003% CO2. Do plant suck at converting O2 to CO2 or what?

 

[Liability]

How Real Science Works:

Theory: Combustion of "Fossil Fuels" (sorry, that phrase always cracks me up) causes an increase in CO2 which in turn has caused an increase in temperatures on Earth.

Contra-indicators: The Ice caps on Mars are melting and there's been no observed warming these past 13 years.

Therefore, our Theory sucks and needs to be discarded

Remember Frank? "ZERO SUM GAME"...

The ONLY WAY to ADD CARBON to what's already here is for a metor/comet HIT. How can MAN ADD to what's already ON the planet?

He cannot. It's impossible.

What I don't understand is how plants convert O2 to CO2 yet Earth's atmosphere is 20% Oxygen and only .003% CO2. Do plant suck at converting O2 to CO2 or what?

Well, it's not that plants are inefficient. They convert sunlight into energy which is kinda a cool trick. And they excrete O2. That's right, we survive by breathing plant shit.

Some of us (and I'm not looking directly at tha malcontent ... no no) also seem to thrive on other biotic excrement, like yeast piss.

Cheers.