When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by midcan5, Sep 25, 2014.

  1. Kimura
    Offline

    Kimura VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bassano del Grappa
    Ratings:
    +102
    It’s definitely true that CO2 has increased in the past, especially in the glacial/interglacial periods. During this period of time, CO2 has increased and decreased by 100ppm, from roughly 180-330ppm. These increases occurred over a 400,000 year period. This was roughly 5,000-20,000 years depending on the glacial cycle.

    However, with that being said, Sparky, we’ve seen an increase of 100ppm in 150 years. Click here to look at the comparison between slow glacial termination vs the industrial revolution.

    When scientists analyzed the isotopes of the carbon/oxygen atoms comprising the atmospheric CO2, which is similar to carbon dating, they determined a human fingerprint of sorts. They discovered old carbon which is a result of fossil fuel deposits, then combined with newer oxygen found in the air nowadays. The present and continued combustion of hydrocarbons is definitely the source of increasing CO2 levels.
     
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    88,333
    Thanks Received:
    16,142
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +47,666
    ...and yet, even after asking for years, no one has ever posted one single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature.

    Why do you suppose that is?
     
  3. Kimura
    Offline

    Kimura VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bassano del Grappa
    Ratings:
    +102
    There is a consensus among the scientific community no matter how much you keep saying there isn't. Sure, theories and viewpoints may differ and conflict, we're dealing with a minuscule minority. For example, if we require absolute consensus and unanimity before we're confident, we can't be sure the moon isn't made of cheese either or that the earth may indeed be flat.

    If we look at the temperatures during the 1990s, for example, you’ll see a sharp decrease in 1992, 1993 and 1994. This was the resuly of massive ejections into our stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo. It doesn’t mean that CO2 went on vacation and stopped affecting global temperatures.

    This is similar to the cooling we found the 1940s and 1950s. The CO2 warming was affected by other factors, such as aerosol and other human particulates. We saw a decrease in these types of emission in the 1960s and 1970s due to improved regulations and technology, but the CO2 footprint started to increase again.

    There's research being done on every country on earth by every major scientific institution and academy of science.

    In science, all that matters is the balance and preponderance of evidence, and theories give us an explanation of evidence. Scientists, where applicable, make predictions and create experiments to confirm, deny or change their theories. They change theories as new information is available.

    In the case of AGW, there is a theory, which was developed well over 100 years ago based of the laws of physics. It’s consistent with a plethora of data and observations. It’s supported by climate models which can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

    But we do, I just posted why the volcano and natural warming theories you posted aren't correct. Please read over the idea, stop categorically ignoring the assembled research.

    In order to identify this alleged natural cycle, a mechanism needs to be identified. If you can’t find this anomaly, there isn't a change in global energy balance. We have a changing balance, whether natural or not, so we must determine this mysterious cause.

    Also, those that adopt this cyclical/natural warming explanation better come up with a reason why a 35% increase in the second most critical greenhouse goes doesn't affect global temperature in any capacity. Theory predicts that temperatures will increase given a rise in the greenhouse effect.

    Um....no it's not.

    CO2 is plant food
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2014
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    88,333
    Thanks Received:
    16,142
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +47,666
    Who's going to be the first to post the temperature per 10PPM of CO2 change measurements from 280 to 400?

    Anyone?

    What do the experiments show for a temperature drop if we drop CO2 from 400 back to 360PPM?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?
     
  5. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    17,786
    Thanks Received:
    3,104
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +10,647
    Frank, hush. The grownups are trying to talk.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    88,333
    Thanks Received:
    16,142
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +47,666
    The "grown ups" could just post the experiments. I mean, that is, if they existed and showed the vicious CO2 molecule pummeling temperature and whipping it into a frenzy with only an additional 120PPM
     
  7. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,204
    Thanks Received:
    2,684
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,761
    You can continue to foolishly argue that science has defied itself by drawing a conclusion and stating a fact, or you can grow the fuck up and understand science can't ever do this because it can't. Conclusions and consensus are made by man, not science. There is no such thing as "consensus and absolute consensus" ...you either have consensus or you don't. Now you are admitting that you don't have "absolute" consensus, but that's okay somehow.

    Yes, Mt. Pinatubo caused more global climate change than man has caused in the past 200 years, and the earth is still spinning on it's axis, the sun still rises every morning. All the ice didn't melt and flood coastal lands. It had no significant impact on man or the environment.

    And why in the hell are you now trying to blame aerosol on affecting CO2 levels? Aerosol was supposedly affecting the OZONE layer, not CO2. And it turned out, the ozone layer wasn't really being affected by aerosols. We had the same nutcase "scientists" bleating the same doom and gloom, insisting that government fuck capitalists in the ass over spray cans because, if we don't... oh my, oh dear, we're not going to have any more ozone layer! Everybody is going to die! So we went out there and spent billions of dollars refining new technologies, redesigning productions, trashing product, rendering less expensive processes obsolete, so that we could "save the planet" from the ozone crisis. Turns out, the ozone naturally dissipates at the poles and has always had a hole there. There was never a crisis.

    No, in science, what matters is the next question, the next test, the next observation. What does not matter to science is conclusions. What you are trying to do is say conclusions ARE part of science and if we conclude something wrongly we can change it tomorrow. But that's not a conclusion. When you conclude something, it's permanent. It means there is nothing else to add, nothing will be found tomorrow, all the facts are in, the debate is over. Conclusion have consequences. Things are changed based on the conclusion. Further evaluation doesn't happen because something has been concluded. With a conclusion, science has no role.

    Again... Global temperature has risen a whopping one degree in the last century! Whether man has contributed to that or not is irrelevant because it's such an insignificant amount. But hey... let's freak out about all kinds of things man is doing... like, we're using up fossil fuels! No more dinosaurs are dying, so eventually it will be all gone. That's going to happen long before capitalists melt the North Pole. Population growth is booming due to medicines enabling man to live longer, eventually we will run out of room to put people... all the statistics show an increase in population every stinking year. We can't wait until the stack up on each other because some of the land has to be used to produce resources for the population, so the overcrowding will happen abruptly as we discover there is no longer enough land to sustain our needs. What's being done about that? It will be a problem long before you see Manhattan sink into the Hudson.

    Again... Volcanoes change our climate dramatically and abruptly. Your data confirms that, and shows 3 years of climate change which happened due to a volcano. Now in this case the temperatures cooled but that is because a volcano releases ash which blocks the sun. Our factories and stuff aren't producing much ash and debris anymore, so the release of CO2 doesn't block the sun. If the warmness gets to be too bad, maybe capitalists can come up with some "healthy" way to release smog and cause global cooling to happen? //tongueincheek

    There is not an "alleged natural cycle" any more than there is an "alleged planet" or an "alleged nature." We have a planet, we have nature, and we have natural cycles of the planet's nature. We constantly have changing energy balances, day in an day out. In fact, I bet there are not two days in the history of the planet where energy balances were the same across the board. Things are in a constant state of change. That's one of the remarkable aspects of our miraculous planet.

    The "Greenhouse Effect" is a good thing. Without it, there would be no life on Earth and we'd be like Mars. Okay, here's an idea, let's send capitalists to Mars and let them "pollute" the atmosphere with CO2, so Mars can get some greenhouse effect going? Then we'll send you warmers to Mars to tell the Martians how they need to do something about global warming!


    Blah Blah Blah... more of the same tripe. Your little blog post about CO2 being plant food is totally hilarious. A great example of spinning the PR in your favor. Basically it says, yeah... okay, so CO2 is plant food and they do thrive on it, BUT... conditions have to be right and they won't be if we don't solve global warming! LOL
     
  8. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    111,339
    Thanks Received:
    13,113
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +39,998
    The Republican Party began to go to hell when they began to discover that they could effectively ignore minorities and women and labor and gays, and various other groups,

    and still prosper politically by putting together a mostly white mostly Christian conservative coalition.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. RKMBrown
    Offline

    RKMBrown Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    17,506
    Thanks Received:
    1,583
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,297
    bullshit you POS racist ass
     
  10. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    17,786
    Thanks Received:
    3,104
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +10,647
    According to your very peculiar way of defining things, since that there is no absolute consensus that the earth is round, we therefore don't know for certain the earth is round. That's why nobody pays attention to your very peculiar way of defining things.

    You're still badly detached from reality on the topic of volcanoes.

    That's funny. You clearly have no idea what "aerosol" means. You seem to think a can of hairspray represents "aerosols".

    Yes, yes, your fringe political cult has a whole pack of realty-defying conspiracy theories which the cultists are commanded to parrot. Global warming denial is one, ozone depletion theory denial is another. I'm sure you'll also tell us how DDT is harmless, since that's another required cult belief.

    Let me introduce you to a concept called "the future". Those possessing common sense will try to prevent bad things from happening in the future. Those without common sense will jump off a building and say, as they're going down "No problems yet!".

    You're implying that addressing one problem makes it impossible to address any other problems. That's another failure of logic and common sense on your part.

    Now you're waving your hands about madly as you fling out red herrings.

    Natural cycles have causes. We know what those causes are. Those natural cycles are now trying to force earth into a slow cooldown. Instead, we're seeing fast warming, because humans are overriding those natural cycles.

    We measure the changing heat balance of the earth. We measure outgoing IR radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. We measure downward IR backradiation going up. Those are smoking guns. Global warming theory explains such observations perfectly, and is the only theory that explains it. If you have a "natural cause" that explains it, I suggest you publish and collect your Nobel Prize.

    "I refuse to believe people are smart enough to measure and understand these things!" fallacy. You refusing to believe it doesn't change anything.

    And a wish to banish your political enemies, check. There's a definite streak of Stalinism present in your cult.
     

Share This Page