Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't think spending over 10 trillion dollars to build the largest structures in the world increases the use of Oil?No, you do not need to repeat yourself. Just make yourself coherent. Solar and Wind use oil, they increase the use of oil. So you stated you do not support using solar and wind to create energy.We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.
And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?
As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?
If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.
No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?
Solar and wind uses components fabricated from a petroleum-base. To operate, they don't need oil. They don't even need coal. They just do their thing and supply electricity to the grid. To suggest that they increase the use of oil is ludicrous. And once again (I do hate repeating myself so listen up), we need oil. It is a vital lubricant and raw ingredient for many critical products. We should NOT be using it as an energy source because 1) it is finite in quantity, and so when it is gone, it is gone; 2) It is a very dirty fuel source that not only increases the concentration of ghgs in the atmosphere, but emits carcenogens, mutagens, and toxic heavy metals into the environment with its use, transport, and storage. Considering that there are current cleaner alternatives and many more to come in the near future, it is high time we let technology wean us off of it.
To operate, Wind Turbines, you need 5-55 gallon drums of lubicant a year, once you add the 100's of thousands of turbines up, seems like that has increased the use of oil, and not just raw crude, but highly refined oil.
Solar and Wind do not displace the use of Oil, Because Oil is not used to make Electricity.
Solar and Wind can not operate, be maintained, be built without increasing the use of Oil, if Oil is finite as you state, then the things made and maintained with Oil is finite.
Money for Wallstreet, over 10 trillion dollars.
So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.
You have no problem using MORE oil to make less energy?You don't think spending over 10 trillion dollars to build the largest structures in the world increases the use of Oil?No, you do not need to repeat yourself. Just make yourself coherent. Solar and Wind use oil, they increase the use of oil. So you stated you do not support using solar and wind to create energy.We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.
If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.
No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?
Solar and wind uses components fabricated from a petroleum-base. To operate, they don't need oil. They don't even need coal. They just do their thing and supply electricity to the grid. To suggest that they increase the use of oil is ludicrous. And once again (I do hate repeating myself so listen up), we need oil. It is a vital lubricant and raw ingredient for many critical products. We should NOT be using it as an energy source because 1) it is finite in quantity, and so when it is gone, it is gone; 2) It is a very dirty fuel source that not only increases the concentration of ghgs in the atmosphere, but emits carcenogens, mutagens, and toxic heavy metals into the environment with its use, transport, and storage. Considering that there are current cleaner alternatives and many more to come in the near future, it is high time we let technology wean us off of it.
To operate, Wind Turbines, you need 5-55 gallon drums of lubicant a year, once you add the 100's of thousands of turbines up, seems like that has increased the use of oil, and not just raw crude, but highly refined oil.
Solar and Wind do not displace the use of Oil, Because Oil is not used to make Electricity.
Solar and Wind can not operate, be maintained, be built without increasing the use of Oil, if Oil is finite as you state, then the things made and maintained with Oil is finite.
Money for Wallstreet, over 10 trillion dollars.
As expected, you are not listening. My argument is against using oil as an energy source. I have no issue with using it as a lubricant or a raw material for other products. Using oil as a lubricant for wind turbines is a far better solution than burning it ever will be.
Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.
We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.
When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?
Silly ass, you have been throwing that ten trillion number around for days. So, where does it come from, other than your asshole?You have no problem using MORE oil to make less energy?You don't think spending over 10 trillion dollars to build the largest structures in the world increases the use of Oil?No, you do not need to repeat yourself. Just make yourself coherent. Solar and Wind use oil, they increase the use of oil. So you stated you do not support using solar and wind to create energy.No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?
Solar and wind uses components fabricated from a petroleum-base. To operate, they don't need oil. They don't even need coal. They just do their thing and supply electricity to the grid. To suggest that they increase the use of oil is ludicrous. And once again (I do hate repeating myself so listen up), we need oil. It is a vital lubricant and raw ingredient for many critical products. We should NOT be using it as an energy source because 1) it is finite in quantity, and so when it is gone, it is gone; 2) It is a very dirty fuel source that not only increases the concentration of ghgs in the atmosphere, but emits carcenogens, mutagens, and toxic heavy metals into the environment with its use, transport, and storage. Considering that there are current cleaner alternatives and many more to come in the near future, it is high time we let technology wean us off of it.
To operate, Wind Turbines, you need 5-55 gallon drums of lubicant a year, once you add the 100's of thousands of turbines up, seems like that has increased the use of oil, and not just raw crude, but highly refined oil.
Solar and Wind do not displace the use of Oil, Because Oil is not used to make Electricity.
Solar and Wind can not operate, be maintained, be built without increasing the use of Oil, if Oil is finite as you state, then the things made and maintained with Oil is finite.
Money for Wallstreet, over 10 trillion dollars.
As expected, you are not listening. My argument is against using oil as an energy source. I have no issue with using it as a lubricant or a raw material for other products. Using oil as a lubricant for wind turbines is a far better solution than burning it ever will be.
Oil is not used to make Electricity, never has been, never will.
10$ trillion dollars used to build a new industry, 10$ trillion dollars to spend building huge Wind Turbines, that sit idle most of the time, is a huge waste of OIL. An increase in the use of Oil, a 10$ trillion dollar increase in the use of Oil.
To save the Earth you must use up all the Oil today?
Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.[
That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?
You scammers don't know much about science.
I am a geologist, actually. You?
flash said:You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.
You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.
flash said:Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2
A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.
It already has.
flash said:Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.
Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.
How about these, from real sources:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg
RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene
Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists
CO2 and Temperature Data
Climate Change
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A
You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.
We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.
When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?
Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
I post only under one screen name. And have never claimed to be other than what I am. That you are so paranoid that you believe that any one opposing you is as dishonest as you are is your problem. I believe it is Crick that states he does something to do with Oceanography. Every post I have seen from Orogenic man has stated that he is a geologist.Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.[
That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?
You scammers don't know much about science.
I am a geologist, actually. You?
flash said:You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.
You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.
flash said:Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2
A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.
It already has.
flash said:Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.
Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.
How about these, from real sources:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg
RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene
Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists
CO2 and Temperature Data
Climate Change
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A
You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
And yet you have never been able to come up with a geologic thing that I wasn't conversant with. You've never been able to point to a lie (for the record oreo boy, and your sock) claimed he was a oceanographic engineer when he first appeared. He also claimed he worked for the State of Florida IIRC.
OK, asshole, you hit me with a message about a post that was irrelevant to the subject being discussed, so what the hell is this post but totally irrelevant to the subject at hand?Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.
Big deal. It's not against the rules to accuse someone of being a sock, olfraud.
When you do it over and over again, it is called harassment. And THAT is against the rules.
OH GAWD
WTF??!!! How the fcuk to these people end up becoming such pronounced limpwristers?
Somehow......progressives learned to succumb in life at every turn. Its fascinating. Let me tell you something........if you are ever in a fox hole with one of these people, kick them the fuck out immediately!
What I find amusing is the number of progressives who act like complete children when they don't get their way. They pout, they whine, they snivel. These idiots have never grown up and become adults! The clown faces on here have run to momma and whined about some supposed terrible thing that I have done to them that it is truly funny. They demand we listen to them but they are nothing more than children.
Westwall, you are becoming someone a whole bunch of people hold in contempt for your actions toward them. I have not said anything until now, but I will be making complaints concerning your actions from here on in.
So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.You really are a moron...Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.
gawd.... left wits are so gullible...
And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.
Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself looking for the data..
Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!
I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.
London TimesIn a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."
The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.
We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.
When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?
Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.[
That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?
You scammers don't know much about science.
I am a geologist, actually. You?
flash said:You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.
You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.
flash said:Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2
A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.
It already has.
flash said:Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.
Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.
How about these, from real sources:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg
RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene
Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists
CO2 and Temperature Data
Climate Change
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A
You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
And yet you have never been able to come up with a geologic thing that I wasn't conversant with. You've never been able to point to a lie (for the record oreo boy, and your sock) claimed he was a oceanographic engineer when he first appeared. He also claimed he worked for the State of Florida IIRC.
So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.You really are a moron...And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.
Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself looking for the data..
Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!
I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.
Incorrect:
Many were original documents given to the CRU.
London TimesIn a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."
The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.
We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.
When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?
Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.
Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.You scammers don't know much about science.
I am a geologist, actually. You?
flash said:You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.
You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.
flash said:Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2
A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.
It already has.
flash said:Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.
Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.
How about these, from real sources:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg
RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene
Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists
CO2 and Temperature Data
Climate Change
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A
You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
And yet you have never been able to come up with a geologic thing that I wasn't conversant with. You've never been able to point to a lie (for the record oreo boy, and your sock) claimed he was a oceanographic engineer when he first appeared. He also claimed he worked for the State of Florida IIRC.
You're moderator. It is a relatively easy thing for you to put your money where your mouth is and point to the post where I claimed to work for the State of Florida or that I was an oceanographic engineer. You have me confused with someone else, as usual. either that or you are simply lying. As for me being a 'sock', if that were the case, you can have me banned because it is against the rules to have more than one account. Since I don't, and don't have a 'sock', your posts amount to harassment, and has been reported to an administrator. As for being conversant in geologic matter, name five Meramecian species of crinoids, and the formations in which they occur.
So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.You really are a moron...
Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data.
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself looking for the data..
Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!
I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.
Incorrect:
Many were original documents given to the CRU.
London TimesIn a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."
The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.
Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.
We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.
When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?
Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.
Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.
Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.I am a geologist, actually. You?
You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.
It already has.
Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.
How about these, from real sources:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg
RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene
Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists
CO2 and Temperature Data
Climate Change
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A
You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
And yet you have never been able to come up with a geologic thing that I wasn't conversant with. You've never been able to point to a lie (for the record oreo boy, and your sock) claimed he was a oceanographic engineer when he first appeared. He also claimed he worked for the State of Florida IIRC.
You're moderator. It is a relatively easy thing for you to put your money where your mouth is and point to the post where I claimed to work for the State of Florida or that I was an oceanographic engineer. You have me confused with someone else, as usual. either that or you are simply lying. As for me being a 'sock', if that were the case, you can have me banned because it is against the rules to have more than one account. Since I don't, and don't have a 'sock', your posts amount to harassment, and has been reported to an administrator. As for being conversant in geologic matter, name five Meramecian species of crinoids, and the formations in which they occur.
Actually I wish I could. The archives only hold about a month of posts though...
As far as your little test go's, I'm not a paleontologist, however i do remember that there are around 25 species of crinoids in the St. Louis Limestone that I did some work on back in the 1970's. Any more than that and you would have to ask a paleontologist.
