For the AGW Faithers

[Mr.Fitnah]

I think we need to study this global warming stuff..

Just like we need more proof that cigarettes cause cancer.....you can't be to safe

This wasn't your brightest post, RW

It may be.

 

[Liability]

Very humorous post.

There is plenty of "data."

We have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 levels are now at their highest levels ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The poles and the glaciers are melting.

Ocean temperatures are now at the highest levels ever recorded.

All this inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

False

Chrissy is not known for his honesty, accuracy or integrity.

 

[Toronado3800]

Sounds like you like to "oft quote" a lie or don't know how to conduct experiments .

How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

Oh heck, my experiment is much more simple than that. Its a variation of the one gradeschool kids can do using two "enclosed" atmospheres of different compositions and seeing which one ends up warmer.

Sorry to lead to any confusion. I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not, permafrost will release methane or not.

I'm just a stick in the mud who knows what increasing greenhouse gas rates does in small "testable" environments and I like to error on the side of caution. Who knows what it will do to the planet? My bet is greenhouse gasses will work the same.

A CO2 increase might just help my grass or crops grow. Then again it will make cows have to work harder to lug their big bottoms around.

Don't get too excited. My idea of environmental reform is just sticking you with a modern technology SUV that has as much power as a perfectly functional 1990 Caravan but runs cleaner, similar for industry. I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get on the highway in 1990. Even had some excitement about the fox body cars performance.

For industry I can't be so simple. But I promise I'm not about taking away the internet lol.

 

[Liability]

Sounds like you like to "oft quote" a lie or don't know how to conduct experiments .

How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

Oh heck, my experiment is much more simple than that. Its a variation of the one gradeschool kids can do using two "enclosed" atmospheres of different compositions and seeing which one ends up warmer.

Sorry to lead to any confusion. I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not, permafrost will release methane or not.

I'm just a stick in the mud who knows what increasing greenhouse gas rates does in small "testable" environments and I like to error on the side of caution. Who knows what it will do to the planet? My bet is greenhouse gasses will work the same.

A CO2 increase might just help my grass or crops grow. Then again it will make cows have to work harder to lug their big bottoms around.

Don't get too excited. My idea of environmental reform is just sticking you with a modern technology SUV that has as much power as a perfectly functional 1990 Caravan but runs cleaner, similar for industry. I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get on the highway in 1990. Even had some excitement about the fox body cars performance.

For industry I can't be so simple. But I promise I'm not about taking away the internet lol.

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

 

[Oddball]

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

I've pointed this out numerous times and he still refuses to cease using such a pedestrian example.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sigh...I genuinely hate to see smart people buy into such horseshit. I expect it from Dud who thinks he's God's Gift to the Universe anyway, but not from you.

So much for "keeping it honest"

In her defense, it actually says "TRYING to keep it honest."

Which is just an outright lie. She's always trying just the opposite.

/defense.

Oh that's funny.

"Keeping it honest" simply means presenting a different point of view. I do believe that's what a political forum is all about. Helloooooooooooooooooo????

 

[MaggieMae]

Like everything else, the far-left believes science is some massive grey area, not an area of absolutes. They have NO black or white on anything, only one towering, titanic grey area. Therefore "science" is what they say it is, at any given time, and like everything else -- they have no real respect for it and therefore believe they can play fast and loose with it.

Such crap. Working for North American Rockwell during the Apollo Project, I seem to recall a few scientists who claimed Apollo 11 would crash and burn; that it never stood a chance of reaching the moon; even if it did, it would disintigrate on return to earth's atmosphere. But it didn't. Scientists argue with each other all the time, and NOBODY with an ounce of intelligence, including those evil "libs" ever suggested that science per se is a "gray area."

You idiot.

First of all, show us where I ever said "Libs" are the far-left.
What a nit-picker you are. Good grief, it must be pure hell to actually live with you. Lib/far-left, what's the difference?

Secondly, show me where I ever said scientists never argue or disagree.
Again, since we're talking about the SCIENTISTS who have now been presumed to be swayed politically by the, er, "far left," I presumed you were talking about THEM.

Your mindless deflections and moving of the goalposts constantly show your lack of honesty and integrity.

Pardon me all to hell if I forget that I have to write as if I'm speaking to a child sometimes, and leave out any reasonable doubt because some people take every word literally and totally miss the actual points.

That said, I'm sick of this. Just as religion shouldn't mix with politics, neither should science. Your comments are politically motivated, period.

And this is why you ignored my questions about this to you from earlier in this thread?

I have no political motivation here, unless seeking the truth is now a political motivation.

Yeah, sure...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sounds like you like to "oft quote" a lie or don't know how to conduct experiments .

How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

Oh heck, my experiment is much more simple than that. Its a variation of the one gradeschool kids can do using two "enclosed" atmospheres of different compositions and seeing which one ends up warmer.

Sorry to lead to any confusion. I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not, permafrost will release methane or not.

.

I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not

Wrong, as temperature rises the oceans ability to retain CO2 goes down .
Your facts are as questionable as your alleged cognitive ability.

 

[MaggieMae]

AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
* * * *
AGW - What does AGW stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.

rdean's stupid "list" (above) was EDITED to reflect the already WELL-UNDERSTOOD acronym from the above list -- which constitutes (otherwise) mere static from rdean.

In fact, nobody who had already responded to this thread had any difficulty knowing what AGW stood for in this context.

Geeze, I wonder why Maurader didn't jump all over you for posting something you presume to be "well understood"?? Surely it can't be because he's not "politically motivated."

 

[MaggieMae]

oddly unconcerned by the efforts of SOME other folks with an agenda to falsify or conceal the actual data relative to the alleged AGW stuff.

Yes.... They are oddly unconcerned.

Because as I said before that struck a nerve with Maggie, which made her blow a seal and leave in a huff -- they really have zero actual respect for science. Because it's absolute, with no grey areas.

They detest anything that truly doesn't have a grey area.

I hardly left in a huff. You should have noted by now that I rarely, if ever, post on this board on weekend afternoons, and only around 4 hours a day (never in the middle of the night either which is apparently where you people concoct your little conspiracy theories). I have a life with many other duties and which require sleep and nourishment other than Cheetos.

 

[Oddball]

So much for "keeping it honest"

In her defense, it actually says "TRYING to keep it honest."

Which is just an outright lie. She's always trying just the opposite.

/defense.

Oh that's funny.

"Keeping it honest" simply means presenting a different point of view. I do believe that's what a political forum is all about. Helloooooooooooooooooo????

If that supposedly different POV is based in intellectual dishonesty, which the bulk of yours are, there's nothing remotely anywhere near keeping anything honest.

Nice try, though....No, it's really not.

 

[MaggieMae]

I postulate that liberalism and those who support peer reviewed religion are mentally ill. Shall we then just throw everyone who supports the theory in a mental institute until it is proven false?

You postulate like you're in a sitting position--on the crapper--and it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Oddball]

I postulate that liberalism and those who support peer reviewed religion are mentally ill. Shall we then just throw everyone who supports the theory in a mental institute until it is proven false?

I've peer reviewed this comment and find it 100% credible.

Isn't peer review fun?

 

[MaggieMae]

There seems to be something else about this little rule that bothers Me.

Who made that up that a theory was valid until proven otherwise?

Scientists? ....

Some and some brilliant philosophers such as Karl Popper.

.... How convenient that is. It gets them off the hook, doesn't it? ....

Not at all. The logic of scientific discovery is crystal clear, rigorous, and robust.

No, they don't just make up shit and sit back. They first must have a falsifiable theory (or hypothesis) and demonstrate its falsifiability. Then they must support that with good science.

THAT, my friend, is where these 'scientists' have (allegedly) betrayed their integrity. No, you cannot make up data. You cannot manipulate data in a biased manner. You cannot eliminate data unless there is a statistical or other valid reason, to do so. And, you cannot manipulate the peer-review process that determines the scientific integrity of the work.

.... postulate a theory (really just a pet project to make themselves money) and then when they are caught say that it really doesn't disprove our theory? ....

Technically, they are correct. It does not disprove their theory. What it DOES do, though, is show that their theory was never supported with good science. Thus, the conclusion is that the theory is not valid. The principles of scientific discovery are quite thorough.

.... Explain to Me how that happens?

I hope I just did, but do ask. This is an important topic.

A plus is that more folks will become aware of the principles of scientific discovery, and that's one good thing that may come of this mess.

My word, I don't know why you waste time on a stupid political message board. You could be out there teaching the philosophy of scientific discovery and making big bucks. You would have all those 6-degree'd guys who actually do lab work running around like the scared mice they use for testing. No one would ever believe in science again because all it takes is for the politically conservative movement to punch holes in a valid debate, and voila! It becomes GOSPEL!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Too many on the left.

They use this ploy by choice.

They like to muddy the waters.

If a conservative expressses doubt about AGW, they pretend that conservatives favor pollution. Two utterly different matters, but not when they engage in deliberately false rhetoric.

I now speak for ALL Conservatives: I favor drinking clean water and breathing clean air and I like eating foods which are not contaminated by poisons. I thus FAVOR appropriate legislation to control, reduce and eradicate pollution to the extent reasonably possible consistent with our needs and actual scientific knowledge.

I do NOT, on that basis, favor pretending that we have any measurable impact on climate: and I oppose taking "measures" based on falsified science to "do" something pointless about climate at the expense of economic growth and our actual human needs. I absolutely oppose the misuse of science to obtain an ECONOMIC result -- especially one I deem purely socialist in nature.

Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters. It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated over the decades, volumes of peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and the findings of thousands of scientists working independently within several different scientific bodies.

No Mags. What IS laughable is that so many on the left, including you and your ilk, try so foolishly and (of course) unpersuasively to deny the import of those e-mails. Again, since you would prefer to pretend otherwise, I'll just go ahead and restate the obvious:

They demonstrate that the SCIENCE got undermined by deliberate deception including but not limited to the concealment of data which would undercut the AGW "faith." And the ones doing that deliberate deception were the AGW Faithers to which you sheep on the left flock.

I'll put a Maurader trick here and ask you where I DENIED the import of the emails. I'm simply saying that they are insignificant in their own import up against the voluminous scientific information already available. Why hasn't there been any followup by these email exchangers? Have they been doing interviews anywhere?

 

[MaggieMae]

Sigh...I genuinely hate to see smart people buy into such horseshit. I expect it from Dud who thinks he's God's Gift to the Universe anyway, but not from you.

So much for "keeping it honest"

Mags cannot, by simple definiton, "keep it honest," for that requires that she have been honest in the first place.

And she hasn't been.

You would know honesty if it raised up and slapped up upside the head. I'm stating my opinions based on the facts I read. I presume that's what you also do. Dishonesty is not allowing me the same opportunity. If that's too difficult for the majority of you to *get* then you truly have my sympathies. You'll never amount to anything other than tunnel-visioned wild-eyed reactionaries whenever someone happens to disagree with you. Just like little children.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sounds like you like to "oft quote" a lie or don't know how to conduct experiments .

How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

Oh heck, my experiment is much more simple than that. Its a variation of the one gradeschool kids can do using two "enclosed" atmospheres of different compositions and seeing which one ends up warmer.

Sorry to lead to any confusion. I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not, permafrost will release methane or not.

I'm just a stick in the mud who knows what increasing greenhouse gas rates does in small "testable" environments and I like to error on the side of caution. Who knows what it will do to the planet? My bet is greenhouse gasses will work the same.

A CO2 increase might just help my grass or crops grow. Then again it will make cows have to work harder to lug their big bottoms around.

Don't get too excited. My idea of environmental reform is just sticking you with a modern technology SUV that has as much power as a perfectly functional 1990 Caravan but runs cleaner, similar for industry. I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get on the highway in 1990. Even had some excitement about the fox body cars performance.

For industry I can't be so simple. But I promise I'm not about taking away the internet lol.

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

My my my, such scientific experts we have here. Big experiments often begin with small ones. Ever own an erector set? OH NO...you probaby thought it would give you a hard on.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

I've pointed this out numerous times and he still refuses to cease using such a pedestrian example.

So how did Ben Franklin discover electricity?

 

[MaggieMae]

In her defense, it actually says "TRYING to keep it honest."

Which is just an outright lie. She's always trying just the opposite.

/defense.

Oh that's funny.

"Keeping it honest" simply means presenting a different point of view. I do believe that's what a political forum is all about. Helloooooooooooooooooo????

If that supposedly different POV is based in intellectual dishonesty, which the bulk of yours are, there's nothing remotely anywhere near keeping anything honest.

Nice try, though....No, it's really not.

Try quoting something I posted that was "intellectually dishonest" and then you will have made your point. You hate me BECAUSE I challenge your own intellectual honesty. Nothing could be more obvious.

 

[Si modo]

There seems to be something else about this little rule that bothers Me.

Who made that up that a theory was valid until proven otherwise?

Scientists? ....

Some and some brilliant philosophers such as Karl Popper.

Not at all. The logic of scientific discovery is crystal clear, rigorous, and robust.

No, they don't just make up shit and sit back. They first must have a falsifiable theory (or hypothesis) and demonstrate its falsifiability. Then they must support that with good science.

THAT, my friend, is where these 'scientists' have (allegedly) betrayed their integrity. No, you cannot make up data. You cannot manipulate data in a biased manner. You cannot eliminate data unless there is a statistical or other valid reason, to do so. And, you cannot manipulate the peer-review process that determines the scientific integrity of the work.
Technically, they are correct. It does not disprove their theory. What it DOES do, though, is show that their theory was never supported with good science. Thus, the conclusion is that the theory is not valid. The principles of scientific discovery are quite thorough.

.... Explain to Me how that happens?

I hope I just did, but do ask. This is an important topic.

A plus is that more folks will become aware of the principles of scientific discovery, and that's one good thing that may come of this mess.

My word, I don't know why you waste time on a stupid political message board. You could be out there teaching the philosophy of scientific discovery and making big bucks. You would have all those 6-degree'd guys who actually do lab work running around like the scared mice they use for testing. No one would ever believe in science again because all it takes is for the politically conservative movement to punch holes in a valid debate, and voila! It becomes GOSPEL!!

Being an idiot is one thing, being a dishonest idiot is a another thing. Then, flailing like a witch who has lost any chance whatsoever to convince a soul that her tantrum has foundation, is a new peak for you.