The Arrogance of the Warmers

[wirebender]

A23A

C24A

Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.

Real hucksterism from mediocre confidence men.

 

[wirebender]

It's not good enough to just say that sometimes logic can be flawed. That's really a nothing statement. To have it mean anything, you have to point out the flaw. Simply dismissing it for the reasons you cited is a logical flaw in itself, since one instance has nothing to do with the other, except as an opportuniy for "guilt by association".

The flaws are legion. The foundational flaw is that the model upon which the energy budget of climate pseudoscience is based does not represent reality. The model is based on a flat earth that is radiated to the level of a sort of twilight 24 hours a day. The secondary flaw is that the energy transfers in this model that doesn't represent reality violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

The fact that they have been able to get away with it for so long is testament to the level of dumbing down that has happened within our educational system.

 

[gslack]

A23A

C24A

Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.

And you understand none of it anyway.. Care to tell me what part you play in that science there MENSA boy? LOL

 

[bripat9643]

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

When did anyone prove that CO2 made the earth warmer?

 

[bripat9643]

A23A

C24A

Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.

Penn State is the disgraced university where Michael Mann conjured up his Hockey Stick fraud.

Is that your conception of a "real scientist?"

 

[ScienceRocks]

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

When did anyone prove that CO2 made the earth warmer?

It feeds plants=more plants=transpiration

The act or process of transpiring, especially through the stomata of plant tissue or the pores of the skin.

"Transpiration means to perspire and is common within plants. This is loss of water vapor through leaves and/or stems. Most transpiration occurs through the stomata. Why do plants lose such large quantities of water to transpiration? Do you know the answer?

To answer this question, let us look again at the function of the leaf. The chief function of the leaf is for photosynthesis, which is the source of all food for the entire plant body. The necessary energy for photosynthesis comes from sunlight. Therefore, for a maximum amount of photosynthesis to occur, a plant must have a maximum amount of surface area able to reach the sunlight.
."

Lecture 3: Transpiration

wirebender will agree that water vapor is the one gas that does hold some energy within the climate system. So in this way a increase of co2 would in fact=warmer earth!

 

[code1211]

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

The thing about logic is that it depends on knowing enough to figure something out. Logic told us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that CO2 caused global warming.

Logic proved that God exists if you're Thomas Aquinas and that He does not if you're David Hume.

Logic is a wonderful tool and should be used wisely.

Ironclad logic really depends on one's point of view, biases and pardigms.

It's not good enough to just say that sometimes logic can be flawed. That's really a nothing statement. To have it mean anything, you have to point out the flaw. Simply dismissing it for the reasons you cited is a logical flaw in itself, since one instance has nothing to do with the other, except as an opportuniy for "guilt by association".

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please, then, use logic to explain how the warming caused by the increase orf CO2 resulting from the Industrial Revolution started 50 years before the Industrial Revolution.

Please include in your logical explantion how the future can cause the past.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Solar tsi after about 1720 started increasing=warming temperature on earth...This caused a increase of natural co2 of around 3-4 ppm between the peak of the little ice age to 1880. Yes, before the little ice age it was 3-4 ppm higher...So between temperature of -1.6c cooler then today and temperatures like today comes with a "outgassing" or absorbing of the oceans of a few ppm of co2.

As far as I know the co2 during the Holocene optimum wasn't more then 280ppm...Falling into the 270's during the little ice age. YES, the sun caused the med evil, little ice age and a large part of the current one.

 

[westwall]

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

When did anyone prove that CO2 made the earth warmer?

It feeds plants=more plants=transpiration

The act or process of transpiring, especially through the stomata of plant tissue or the pores of the skin.

"Transpiration means to perspire and is common within plants. This is loss of water vapor through leaves and/or stems. Most transpiration occurs through the stomata. Why do plants lose such large quantities of water to transpiration? Do you know the answer?

To answer this question, let us look again at the function of the leaf. The chief function of the leaf is for photosynthesis, which is the source of all food for the entire plant body. The necessary energy for photosynthesis comes from sunlight. Therefore, for a maximum amount of photosynthesis to occur, a plant must have a maximum amount of surface area able to reach the sunlight.
."

Lecture 3: Transpiration

wirebender will agree that water vapor is the one gas that does hold some energy within the climate system. So in this way a increase of co2 would in fact=warmer earth!

Well done! Logical, reasoned, supported by actual facts. Now how to measure the increase.

 

[westwall]

Solar tsi after about 1720 started increasing=warming temperature on earth...This caused a increase of natural co2 of around 3-4 ppm between the peak of the little ice age to 1880. Yes, before the little ice age it was 3-4 ppm higher...So between temperature of -1.6c cooler then today and temperatures like today comes with a "outgassing" or absorbing of the oceans of a few ppm of co2.

As far as I know the co2 during the Holocene optimum wasn't more then 280ppm...Falling into the 270's during the little ice age. YES, the sun caused the med evil, little ice age and a large part of the current one.

Better watch out Matthew. That's blasphemous talk there my boy!

 

[wirebender]

wirebender will agree that water vapor is the one gas that does hold some energy within the climate system. So in this way a increase of co2 would in fact=warmer earth!

Given a choice though, I would prefer the planetary flora to be as healthy and thriving as possible. How about you? Keep in mind though, that you are still talkling about water vapor and increased water vapor in the atmosphere induces more negative feedbacks as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...

The Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998) was created by a small group of prominent industry, PR and "think tank" heads styled the "Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)", aka "Global Climate Science Team". Their plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming was laid out in a memo, which became public.

The material below contains a memo by the API from April 1998.

Global warming: The campaign by the American Petroleum Institute

Memo

Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan

As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop Last Friday.

Global Climate Science Communications

Action Plan

Project Goal

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,

Victory Will Be Achieved When

* Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

* Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

* Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

* Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

* Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

* Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

* Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

* Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

* Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

* Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.

 

[code1211]

How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...

The Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998) was created by a small group of prominent industry, PR and "think tank" heads styled the "Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)", aka "Global Climate Science Team". Their plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming was laid out in a memo, which became public.

The material below contains a memo by the API from April 1998.

Global warming: The campaign by the American Petroleum Institute

Memo

Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan

As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop Last Friday.

Global Climate Science Communications

Action Plan

Project Goal

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,

Victory Will Be Achieved When

* Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

* Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

* Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

* Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

* Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

* Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

* Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

* Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

* Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

* Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.

From you link to illustrate why the group put this plan forth:

"The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto treaty - which most true climate scientists believe to be the case - this puts the United States in a stronger moral position and frees its negotiators from the need to make concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic concerns."

They were in the 90's and are now, probably, concerned that the lion's share of the media coverage covers the parts of the story that fit the "If it bleeds it leads" tendencies of the mindless stenographers of the Fourth Estate.

Warmers wail about the "Predicted Ice Age" of the 70's media coverage, but that is exactly the approach of this century's media citing the sensationally imagined results of global warming and ignoring the evidence that these results simply are not happening. People don't care if it's warmer in Minneapolis. They kind of appreciate the change.

They are terrified that the world might end and that is the prediction put forth by warmers. Movies are made and the gullible quake with fear then swell with pride that they are on the right side of history.

The plan you condemn is a plan to publish truth. Liberals should fear this while thinking Americans should give thanks.

 

[Bfgrn]

How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...

The Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998) was created by a small group of prominent industry, PR and "think tank" heads styled the "Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)", aka "Global Climate Science Team". Their plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming was laid out in a memo, which became public.

The material below contains a memo by the API from April 1998.

Global warming: The campaign by the American Petroleum Institute

Memo

Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan

As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop Last Friday.

Global Climate Science Communications

Action Plan

Project Goal

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,

Victory Will Be Achieved When

* Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

* Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

* Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

* Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

* Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

* Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

* Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

* Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

* Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

* Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.

From you link to illustrate why the group put this plan forth:

"The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto treaty - which most true climate scientists believe to be the case - this puts the United States in a stronger moral position and frees its negotiators from the need to make concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic concerns."

They were in the 90's and are now, probably, concerned that the lion's share of the media coverage covers the parts of the story that fit the "If it bleeds it leads" tendencies of the mindless stenographers of the Fourth Estate.

Warmers wail about the "Predicted Ice Age" of the 70's media coverage, but that is exactly the approach of this century's media citing the sensationally imagined results of global warming and ignoring the evidence that these results simply are not happening. People don't care if it's warmer in Minneapolis. They kind of appreciate the change.

They are terrified that the world might end and that is the prediction put forth by warmers. Movies are made and the gullible quake with fear then swell with pride that they are on the right side of history.

The plan you condemn is a plan to publish truth. Liberals should fear this while thinking Americans should give thanks.

It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

 

[skookerasbil]

Obama's EPA = "absurdism"...........RealClearEnergy | O's EPA is Anything But Reasonable


But not for looooooooooooong. Only about 12 months more of this BS!!!

 

[daveman]

Arrogance of warmers? That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the absolute truth. It's just a coincidence 7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last ten -twenty years?

Completely unproven that it is not produced from other sources besides mankind. Warmists have NO absolute proof of anything. You can say that CO2 increased, but you cannot link it irrefutably to strictly anthropogenic sources.

Other than that, you do have a cool avatar.

Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.

The bolded statement is wrong.

Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal

The carbon dioxide emission factors in this article are expressed in terms of the energy content of coal as pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu. Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms during coal combustion when one atom of carbon (C) unites with two atoms of oxygen (O) from the air. Because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44. Based on that ratio, and assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide. For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent and a heating value of 14,000 Btu per pound emits about 204.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned.(5) Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.​

 

[daveman]

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

What you call "inappropriate" and impossible to meet" is what genuine scientists call a "well designed experiment." That's how we know you're nothing more than another global warming con-artist.



That's hilarious coming from someone who just proved he doesn't know a thing about science.

About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt.

There's plenty of disagreement and plenty of doubt.

So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.

So we should cripple the economies of the Western world and legislate against the use of most of the energy we need when there are no alternatives that are feasible, economical, and scalable "just in case"?

Sorry. Need more than that. You go live in a tent with no electricity if you want, but don't pretend you have the moral authority to demand I do to satisfy your wishful thinking.

 

[daveman]

So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.

Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.

Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".

It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.

But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.

If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.

If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...

So, world socialism is the only thing that can save us?

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama's EPA = "absurdism"...........RealClearEnergy | O's EPA is Anything But Reasonable


But not for looooooooooooong. Only about 12 months more of this BS!!!

This is not 'O's EPA...
This is not even the EPA...
This is the Supreme Court...
This is 'State's rights'...

Unless Obama was president from 2003 to 2007...

EPA’s Not Seeking 230,000 New Bureaucrats

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

 

[Bfgrn]

Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.

Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".

It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.

But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.

If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.

If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...

So, world socialism is the only thing that can save us?

Ah, the polarized argument. ALL or NONE, BLACK or WHITE...

Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.