I've run out of patience with the Warmers

How do you dare call it science, if you can't (or won't ) do a repeatable experiment on de minimus increases in CO2?
 
After the last 2 foot dump of snow, my street looks like a battlefield after a Soviet artillery barrage; every other tree is cracked and downed.

During my morning walk with my dog I began to think about the fraud that is ManMade Global Warming and had the following thoughts:

First, Warmers have their atoms and molecules confused. My car used to pump out CO, carbon monoxide, until EnviroMarxists convinced the auto industry to install a Catalytic Converters. In a seriously what the fucking fuck? moment, I read the following:

"A catalytic converter is what makes emissions that much less harmful to people and the environment. As the heart of an exhaust system, it connects the exhaust manifold to the muffler. It's a contained area that encourages a chemical change; in fact, its where carbon monoxide (CO) becomes carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrocarbons (HC) become carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20). In a three-way converter, nitrogen oxides (NOx) become nitrogen (N) and oxygen (O). pumps out"

I did not seriously realize that you were this ignorant, Frank. CO is a poison. HC are primary components of smog, as are the NOx molecules. All these chemicals are poisons to both animal and plant life. CO2 is not. It is a GHG, but is not poisonous.

What?! CO2 is much less harmful? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. CO2 will only kill you by displacing the the normal atmosphere and the O2 in it.

You mean we're intentionally pumping out CO2? What fucking sense does that makes? Weren't we better off pumping out CO? I mean it's only deadly, if you lock yourself in the garage with the car running!

Car Exhausts - Their Basic Composition



Can we eliminate Catalytic Converters to save the planet?

Can we eliminate idiotic posts?

only if you can start to exercise some self control.
 
Second, Warmers have stationed CO2 monitors near the active volcano at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and sho'nuff, it's emitting more CO2.

Take up my challenge, you have a semi-controlled experiment here over a few thousand square miles of ocean with a local increase in CO2.

Please show me that the temperature has also increased in proportion with the increases in CO2.

Can ya do that?

The media can't tell us what to think. But they can tell us what to think ABOUT.

Have you ever wondered if what we're doing to the environment is limited to global warming? It's NOT. But the media has focused on that one issue, as if proving that it's not happening would make the rainforest bounce back.


Not at all. The argument is that Increasing CO2 will increase temperature. As a result of this, our own EPA has cited CO2 as a poisenous gas even though without it, the entire world dies. Period.

This whole thing is a sham and an exercise in exageration.

The temperature has risen about 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. The temperature has actually fallen 1 degree in the last 8000 years. There is not crisis in climate- only in trying to stop our government from pissing on our collective hat and telling us it's raining.

I find it a bit disconcerting that our government lies to us about everything and just keeps on doing it. Don't you?
 
Now come on, scientist? present something other than mindless derision. Is that beyond your capabilities?:lol:
What does what I said have to do with science? You think Hansen's ex-supervisor at NASA didn't say Hansen is an embarrassment to NASA? Think again.

Hansen, et al sold out their scientific integrity to politics. Those who haven't, have an ability to recognize this.

In 1988, Dr. James Hansen stood in front of Congress and stated the dangers that we were creating for ourselves with the creation of GHGs by the use of fossil fuels.
People like you accused him then of being an 'alarmist' or other much worse things.

But his predictions were correct. We are seeing warming to the point the ice caps are melting. We are seeing the release of millions of tons of CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost. And, for the last two years, have began to see the release of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates.

People like you were wrong then, you are wrong now.

You impugn Dr. Hansen's integrity. In doing so, you prove your own lack of that trait. It is doubtful that you even realize the meaning of the word.


Rewriting The Science - 60 Minutes - CBS News

CBS) This story originally aired on March 19, 2006.

As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But as correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last spring, this imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.


His predictions were wrong. He said that if CO2 rose at the rate that it has risen that temperatures would have risen twice as much as they have.

He is wrong by a factor of 100%.

How is 100% wrong considered right even in your estimate?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top