Climate alarmist declares that, 'There's no way to solve the climate crisis without ending capitalism'

[elektra]

Nope. You should really study the topic before posting. You look like you aren't even familiar with the topic.



Wow. You don't even have a clue here do you? I'm kind of amazed you have the cojones to show off this astounding lack of education.

So you think that when you compress CO2 and create dry ice that it means CO2 is "cold" by itself? You do realize that liquid N2 is even colder, right? And Nitrogen (N2) makes up most of our atmosphere.

Do you think the atmosphere is 77degrees Kelvin right now?


Wow.

Wow, you think we compress co2 to make dry ice, you skipped a step or two, that comes before you compress the crystal flakes.

Now when you skipped over the step of converting co2 from a gas into a liquid is that because you are actually the person here lacking in education?

Co2? Warms, creates heat? Then how come Co2 is not the gas they use to build those nice double or triple paned windows? Seems odd you would not use such a heat generating gas in a window if you wanted to stay warm up here in the north.

One of those great mysteries of co2.

But not as a big of a mystery as to see how you seem clueless and uneducated as to the process of making dry ice.


Liquefy and maybe reduce pressure? I am not surprised you did not know the basics of co2 and dry ice.

 

[elektra]

Hilarious. I mean no offense but you are so out of the ballpark on this one you may as well be playing a different game.

Thanks for the morning laugh. I love the dry ice is cold thing as some critique of AGW. That's fuckin' hilarious!

Certainly a fool would find many things funny. A critique of agw, man's part of global warming? Now you are using conjecture and ridicule, I never associated dry ice with the hypothetical theory of AGW.

I simply like to state facts to see if I am dealing with an intellect or fool. A fool conjures up something that is not stated and insinuates somebody said it.

Why must you make things up? You don't like some of the facts so you must act the troll and flame a post?

 

[elektra]

Tyndall discovered the CO2 absorbs IR.



By definition it is a greenhouse gas/



What, exactly, would Tyndall know in 1860 about this?

Tyndall stated that at the level in the atmosphere there is zero effect on temperature.

You think otherwise, great, tell us at what level co2 needs to be at. To not warm the atmosphere yet still be available as food to plants.

At what level does co2 warm the atmosphere? And by how many degrees? What year did we reach that tipping point. What was the level when Tyndall did his experiment.

All you stated here, was nothing, you left so much out that you exposed your complete lack of education once again. Given the opportunity to address the father of co2 all you can state, is what I stated? And you called me uneducated.

You have really proved you know nothing.

Go ahead, reply again, the things you are sharing git me riveted to this OP.

Fucking idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But when someone claims that the science is corrupted by money that's usually a big red flag that they don't have any technical expertise.

No kidding. Why would science or scientists ever be corrupted by money?

 

[elektra]

HAHAHAHAAAaaaa... what a doof.

1) No one arguing the mainstream science of AGW classifies CO2 as a pollutant, per se.

A doof? Yet we have you contradicting Scientific America! And, you do cite Scientific America as a source.

The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide

CO2 outranks soot, methane and even hydrofluorocarbons in terms of long-term global warming

www.scientificamerican.com

The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide​

How can we take little crick seriously when crick does not understand that the mainstream science does call co2 a pollutant.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No kidding. Why would science or scientists ever be corrupted by money?

No one denies that humans are capable of doing wrong. The key is is the entire field made up only of those who do evil?

If you think that the majority of AGW (which has been studied and documented by thousands upon thousands of independent researchers across the globe for the past 60 years is so foundationally corrupt you are hypothesizing a GIGANTIC CONSPIRACY THEORY.

That's the absurdity. I assume that there are people in YOUR field that are corrupt and do evil. Should I now assume that it is the vast majority of them? Does that include YOU?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Tyndall stated that at the level in the atmosphere there is zero effect on temperature.

Clearly a 19th century scientist was MISTAKEN. I know it's shocking to think that, but sometimes 19th century science isn't as perfect as you might wish it to be.

You think otherwise, great, tell us at what level co2 needs to be at. To not warm the atmosphere yet still be available as food to plants.

It doesn't "Have" to be at any particular level. The key is how much damage will a bunch of excess CO2 do to our society and economy and infrastructure. The planet can be OK even with radically higher levels. But if you popped human society into that kind of environment really fast then you WILL see bad things happen.

All you stated here, was nothing, you left so much out that you exposed your complete lack of education once again. Given the opportunity to address the father of co2 all you can state, is what I stated? And you called me uneducated.

Oh just give it up. You aren't in a position to question my expertise.

You have really proved you know nothing.

Go ahead, reply again, the things you are sharing git me riveted to this OP.

Fucking idiot.

What is your malfunction? I'm serious. YOu guys come out screaming calling everyone names. Are you ALL just trolls?

 

[elektra]

Clearly a 19th century scientist was MISTAKEN. I know it's shocking to think that, but sometimes 19th century science isn't as perfect as you might wish it to be.

Me? I think 19th century science is perfect.

Again you show your lack of knowledge.

It is the AGW advocates and scientists who cite Tyndall as being the 1st scientist to state CO2 contributes to global warming.

Now because I brought Tyndall up, you argue that Tyndall is wrong! This is rich and funny as hell. Great Tyndall is wrong, if Tyndall is wrong about CO2 that means co2 does not contribute to AGW.

You are as wrong as you can get, that is what happens when you argue from an ideology point of view. You simply contradict those on the opposing side. As you did with Tyndall.

You just demonstrated perfectly, that you have no education or real knowledge of, "AGW".

TYNDALL is wrong? Yet all AGW science begins with Tyndall.

 

[elektra]

What is your malfunction? I'm serious. YOu guys come out screaming calling everyone names. Are you ALL just trolls?

You began the insults between us now you have a problem with being called a moron. Again, you are proving you are stupid and can not keep track of what you state.

You are serious but you must insult people and act as if you did not.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Me? I think 19th century science is perfect.

Uh huh.

Again you show your lack of knowledge.

Tyndall wasn't testing the AGW hypothesis. Just to help you a bit.

It is the AGW advocates and scientists who cite Tyndall as being the 1st scientist to state CO2 contributes to global warming.

Tyndall just showed that greenhouse gases like CO2 and H2O absorb IR. That's pretty basic. He established the foundations of what a greenhouse gas was. There has been about 150 years worth of solid research that has happened AFTER that which has shown that, indeed, excess CO2 (even at the levels we are at right now) can and DOES have an impact on the climate.

To assume otherwise is absurd in the extreme. If we know CO2 absorbs IR then MORE CO2 will probably absorb MORE IR.

Tyndall, in establishing that the greenhouse gases actually caused the surface of the earth to be warmer than the blackbody radiation temperature it would have WITHOUT them started us down the path.

Now because I brought Tyndall up, you argue that Tyndall is wrong!

I'm arguing that Tyndall was CORRECT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I am arguing that IF Tyndall actually thought there was insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to be an issue in a future scenario then he was wrong. Given that he was working at the dawn of the industrial age, how on earth could he have drawn a significant conclusion about human produced CO2 emissions???

TYNDALL is wrong? Yet all AGW science begins with Tyndall.

I am not surprised that scientific illiterates such as yourself stumble upon information from a VERY long time ago and think you have some huge insight here. Trust me: you don't. I don't care what Tyndall thought of the concept of AGW, there was simply NO SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION to that effect at that time.

But I DO honor the fact that he figured out (along with Fourier, whom you consistently fail to mention probably because you don't REALLY know this stuff as well as you think you do) that CO2 absorbs IR energy.

You don't really understand any of this stuff, so why are you trying to fake your way through it? You are just looking pathetic.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You began the insults between us

That's doubtful. I'd ask you to support that contention but I know you won't (too lazy).

You are serious but you must insult people and act as if you did not.

Is being a massive hypocrite a turn on for you?

 

[elektra]

It doesn't "Have" to be at any particular level. The key is how much damage will a bunch of excess CO2 do to our society and economy and infrastructure. The planet can be OK even with radically higher levels. But if you popped human society into that kind of environment really fast then you WILL see bad things happen.



Oh just give it up. You aren't in a position to question expertise.

You call that response expertise?

You claim this level of co2 is too high but you can't tell us what level co2 should be at?

"Popped human society"?

"Excess"?

Uh huh.



Tyndall wasn't testing the AGW hypothesis. Just to help you a bit.



Tyndall just showed that greenhouse gases like CO2 and H2O absorb IR. That's pretty basic. He established the foundations of what a greenhouse gas was. There has been about 150 years worth of solid research that has happened AFTER that which has shown that, indeed, excess CO2 (even at the levels we are at right now) can and DOES have an impact on the climate.

To assume otherwise is absurd in the extreme. If we know CO2 absorbs IR then MORE CO2 will probably absorb MORE IR.

Tyndall, in establishing that the greenhouse gases actually caused the surface of the earth to be warmer than the blackbody radiation temperature it would have WITHOUT them started us down the path.



I'm arguing that Tyndall was CORRECT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I am arguing that IF Tyndall actually thought there was insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to be an issue in a future scenario then he was wrong. Given that he was working at the dawn of the industrial age, how on earth could he have drawn a significant conclusion about human produced CO2 emissions???



I am not surprised that scientific illiterates such as yourself stumble upon information from a VERY long time ago and think you have some huge insight here. Trust me: you don't. I don't care what Tyndall thought of the concept of AGW, there was simply NO SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION to that effect at that time.

But I DO honor the fact that he figured out (along with Fourier, whom you consistently fail to mention probably because you don't REALLY know this stuff as well as you think you do) that CO2 absorbs IR energy.

You don't really understand any of this stuff, so why are you trying to fake your way through it? You are just looking pathetic.

You dismissed Tyndall, period. That makes you the illiterate fool arguing outside his/her knowledge.

I know exactly what Tyndall did, stated, discovered. I know who cites that and for why.

You apparently knew nothing when you stated, "Tyndall the 19th century scientist was wrong". (If I can paraphrase you idiocy)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The key is is the entire field made up only of those who do evil?

Nope.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You call that response expertise?

You claim this level of co2 is too high but you can't tell us what level co2 should be at?

"Popped human society"?

"Excess"?

Yeah, that's the topic.

You dismissed Tyndall, period.

I did not. You keep saying that but you are wrong.

I know exactly what Tyndall did, stated, discovered. I know who cites that and for why.

I'm tired of arguing this point with you. You don't know the first foreign thing about any of this.

You apparently knew nothing when you stated, "Tyndall the 19th century scientist was wrong". (If I can paraphrase you idiocy)

I wish you didn't have to lie about my posts. But I guess when you are a troll that's the name of the game.

 

[Crick]

And you are a scientist, right.

One lousy molecule of co2, and we run into the next one when? Like are they touching, or on a molecular level is that space literally, miles? 400 parts per million. Seems that the million of other stuff has a greater effect than the 400.

Co2. Dry ice, co2 likes to be cold, even when it is hot out. Let co2 leak from a bottle and you end up with frost on the bottle. Strange.

Really? It "LIKES" to be cold?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAAHAAAhaaahaaahahahaaaa oh JESUS what a fucking idiot.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Really? It "LIKES" to be cold?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAAHAAAhaaahaaahahahaaaa oh JESUS what a fucking idiot.

Yeah it was pretty damn funny, I'll say.

 

[elektra]

I wish you didn't have to lie about my posts. But I guess when you are a troll that's the name of the game.

elektra said:

You apparently knew nothing when you stated, "Tyndall the 19th century scientist was wrong". (If I can paraphrase you idiocy)

Clearly a 19th century scientist was MISTAKEN. I know it's shocking to think that, but sometimes 19th century science isn't as perfect as you might wish it to be.

I dont have to lie about your posts, but I do have to quote you exactly so you can not squirm out of your comments. I even waited before responding so you would not have time to reread your comment and delete your idiocy. You really posted some pretty stupid stuff. And now I see you quoted, crick, the idiot, that is really good. You should get together with Old Crock, and watch that glacier melt from his bedroom window.

3 dumbasses in a tub, rub a dub tub

 

[elektra]

Really? It "LIKES" to be cold?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAAHAAAhaaahaaahahahaaaa oh JESUS what a fucking idiot.

CO2, is dry ice. Best ice you can buy. But hey, if you think CO2 is better at keeping stuff warm, how come it is not used in triple pane windows?

CO2, maybe you can help your buddy out and tell us how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere, you claim the level today is to high, what is the right level.

 

[toobfreak]

Now we are getting down to the brass tacks of what this AGW scam is all about. It ain't about science folks.

Yes. What they are really saying is that climate is more important than people and the only way to protect the climate is to end free choice. THEY will decide if you live, how you live, the work you do and what you make.

 

[elektra]

Clearly a 19th century scientist was MISTAKEN. I know it's shocking to think that, but sometimes 19th century science isn't as perfect as you might wish it to be.

It doesn't "Have" to be at any particular level. The key is how much damage will a bunch of excess CO2 do to our society and economy and infrastructure. The planet can be OK even with radically higher levels. But if you popped human society into that kind of environment really fast then you WILL see bad things happen.

Oh just give it up. You aren't in a position to question my expertise.

What is your malfunction? I'm serious. YOu guys come out screaming calling everyone names. Are you ALL just trolls?

Tyndall was mistaken? But now he is not, is your position?

CO2 is at a level that is too high, causing Man Made Global Warming, yet you state the planet is OK with radically higher levels?

The planet can be OK even with radically higher levels.

Thank god you have come full circle and agreed with me, that CO2 is harmless.

Of course you do qualify your brilliance with that scientific comment of something that is literally complete stupidity, "if you popped human society into that".

Again, thank god that we do not have to worry about our society being, "popped" into that, right? hahahahahahahahahahah