how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

Gslck -

Please read and respond to post #310.

Already did that junior... #313

Clarified exactly WHO is neg-repping me. And that would be you. Here it is verbatim again....

See junior, its just you that's doing the neg-repping.. I got 4 positives from four people and 3 of them were for the same thread, in between your last two negs..

All of those negs were from you alone. One for every week, that's abusing the rep system by any standard..

We aren't talking about neg reps from various people schmuck, they are ALL FROM YOU..

It's okay junior, sooner or later someone here will have to do something about you.

I bolded a bunch of it for clarification and to show you are lying about "people" doing it. The "people" is just you..No your immature behavior is your choice punk. Also, abusing the rep system is your choice as well. The "choice" in acting like child is yours. SO its up to you if you want to keep tempting fate and abusing the system. Personally I hope you do keep it up, and we can be rid of you and your facsimile's...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

.No your immature behavior is your choice punk.

So you lying, making up children's stories about other posters professions and where they live etc, and your constant swamping of threads with off-topic abuse is NOT immature, but neg repping you for it, is?

Interesting.

btw. The system allows for neg reps every 48 hours. By all means confirm that with the mods.

Over and out.

 

[Foxfyre]

As rebuttal:

LOLOLOLOL...here's the whole quote from Dr. Simpson, including the parts you left out (wonder why):
"There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

Yes thank you for clarifying... And I disagree with her claim about following gore and the IPCC. They have been shown dishonest and inaccurate to a fault..

Next excuse please..

Yes, why go with the opinion of those who are not skeptical but have not proved their case? She admits science has not made a sufficient case that AGW is a threat to the planet, but we nevertheless should go with the mandates of those who haven't proved it but who have strong motive for convincing the rest of us that they have? When there is growing evidence that they are being dishonest with the data they use to convince us?

Hell, why don't we all go back to building fall out shelters just in case somebody sets off a nuclear bomb near us? Why don't people in Nebraska require earthquake proof coding for all their buildings just in case they get hit by a big earthquake? Why aren't we constantly monitoring the Canadian border just in case Canada decides to attack us? We can go from logical to ridiculous very quickly when you start dealing with 'what ifs'?

And if we are going to give others the power to direct our lives--something that would have the Founders rolling over in their graves no matter who the others are--why in the world do we want to give those power who we know won't have our best interests at heart?

Sometimes it just makes a person want to bang her head against the wall in frustration at the illogic and stupidity of it all.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I am still waiting for you to answer the two questions from earlier. Please try to post with integrity.


1)
Quote:

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart

And if we are going to give others the power to direct our lives--something that would have the Founders rolling over in their graves no matter who the others are--why in the world do we want to give those power who we know won't have our best interests at heart?

Who do you mean?

2.
Quote:

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt.

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

.No your immature behavior is your choice punk.

So you lying, making up children's stories about other posters professions and where they live etc, and your constant swamping of threads with off-topic abuse is NOT immature, but neg repping you for it, is?

Interesting.

btw. The system allows for neg reps every 48 hours. By all means confirm that with the mods.

Over and out.

First, your behavior and your history here shows you to be lying junior. Your no more a finnish journalist than I am a turnip. The abuse from me you get in response to your own abuse directed at me and others.. I can go through many such posts and show this fraud.

Neg-reps to the same person every 48 hours? LOL, really junior? You sure you want to make that claim? Don't think so because A few times I tried to neg you back and it wouldn't let me. Also I tried to positive rep a few people within a few days and couldn't do it. I don't know how the rep system allotment works, but I do know I can't neg or posi rep the same person every 48 hours.

Stop trying to excuse your behavior with nonsense and half-truths junior. It's pathetic.

Quit crying you know what ya did, so do I.. I called you on it, I didn't go to a mod over it, so quit worrying. A mod will notice it sooner or later, in the meantime, you abuse the system and when I notice it, I'm going to call you on it. Don't like it? Don't do it...

And why aren't you ignoring me like you claimed you were doing? You claimed a few times to have me on ignore, why not actually do it? LOL..

Oh and notice that I quote you accurately and respond to that quote? Why yes you do.Now look at what you did your last two posts to me. First one you didn't quote me at all, the second one you cherry-picked a line and went off on your usual fit...And you have the nerve to question anybody else's honesty? Some journalist.. They don't teach proper quoting and citation in finland? Oh, don't worry fraud that was rhetorical, we know your not in finland. LOL

 

[Saigon]

Gslack-

Your no more a finnish journalist than I am a turnip.

So if I prove to you that I am a Finnish journalist - for instance by sending you links to my stories - would you agree to leave the board? Would that seem fair?

I have actually posted stories here on this board - there is one on Burundi in the Africa section which includes pics of me, for instance.

Neg-reps to the same person every 48 hours? LOL, really junior? You sure you want to make that claim?

Yes. By all means go and check.

Here is the rule for you:

Members may NOT negatively impact the reputation of the same person more that 1 time in a 48 hour period. If a member negatively impacts another person's reputation more than 1 time in a 48 hour period (2/48 Violation) the following will happen:

 

[gslack]

Gslack-

Your no more a finnish journalist than I am a turnip.

So if I prove to you that I am a Finnish journalist - for instance by sending you links to my stories - would you agree to leave the board? Would that seem fair?

I have actually posted stories here on this board - there is one on Burundi in the Africa section which includes pics of me, for instance.

Neg-reps to the same person every 48 hours? LOL, really junior? You sure you want to make that claim?

Yes. By all means go and check.

Aww look you can learn A quote. good start..

Hmm, this sounds a lot like some other poster.. He said similar things regarding a DD214.. ROFL... Yes, of course anything on the net is true.. Gimme a break dude. You want to claim you're a Journalist in Finland be my guest, just don't expect me to buy it when you act like this all the time. You act like your 10. Just like mamooth, you say your this or that, but act like you're a juvenile, and when I doubt your story because it doesn't fit, you respond with this "I got proof" crap...

Please...

EDIT: you edited your post after I responded so I will fix it now..

The rules may be a 48 hour limit, but I do know the system also is not perfect. I know for a fact I have been unable to positive rep people all too often, the popup asks me to spread some reputation around before repping this or that person. There are posts and threads showing this..http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/255606-is-the-48-hour-double-neg-rep-rule-bs.html

But if that's the rule so be it.. But how does that change what you're doing? If you neg me once a week for the last 4 I am quite sure that will be abusing the system by any standard. So you manage to walk a safe line and do it once a week, and that makes you less of a weasel? ROFL, only you would think that junior. ANd you wonder why I don't believe your journalist in finland nonsense...

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre -

I am still waiting for you to answer the two questions from earlier. Please try to post with integrity.


1)
Quote:

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart

And if we are going to give others the power to direct our lives--something that would have the Founders rolling over in their graves no matter who the others are--why in the world do we want to give those power who we know won't have our best interests at heart?

Who do you mean?

2.
Quote:

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt.

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.

Saigon, thank you for your interest, but since you ignored my responses to your earlier questions and continue to distort the points I make, I will respectfully decline to address your now tiresome and repetitious requests. You obviously lack the intellect or the ability or the will--you pick--to understand what others are saying. I don't always succeed, but I do try not to engage in exercises in futility.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

So you refuse to answer questions?

You are just basically trolling?


btw. If I have missed a response from you earlier, give me the post #, and I'll respond to it now. I don't see every post, so I may not have seen it.

 

[Saigon]

What Foxfyre claims:

But he gives us such wonderful lead ins to get good information out there. I know that isn't what he's shooting for. But give him a pass? Naw. The best way to deal with his schtick is to put the accurate information up.

What Foxfyre does:

I will respectfully decline to address your now tiresome and repetitious requests.

That was brilliant, Fox - way to get that "good information out there".

I loved that "accurate information".

Brilliant posting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Saigon, rave on little man. We've got your number. I answered your questions. You ignored the answers. And you only make yourself look more foolish by beating that dead horse. Subject closed.

 

[gslack]

Appeals to authority (the forum in this case), make you look desperate for acceptance as well as pathetic.. Which answers other questions about your behavior.. You know the whole "I am a journalist in finland or I am a "nuke", story makes a lot more sense when I see this .. LOL

 

[PMZ]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

 

[Foxfyre]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

Except the record is inconsistent. The paleoclimate record shows that there have been times in the past in which the CO2 levels were higher but the climate was cooler than now. And despite significant increase in CO2 levels over the last decades, the warming trend seems to have stalled. Which should at least cause us to question whether CO2 was the cause of the warming in the first place.

Here is one scholarly scientific opinion that suggests that CO2 cools the planet rather than warming it. Is that true? I don't know. And neither does anybody else posting on this thread. But it is something we should at least look at before handing over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to others who don't have our best interests at heart.

See on Page 1 and 2 of this abstract:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Greenhouse gas effect is bogus.pdf

This abstract was published by the London Institute of Physics, a prestigious group who in general promotes the concept of AGW. I read all their stuff on the subject though because they are more honest than most such groups and they do give a fair hearing to both sides of the debate. We need a lot more of that.

 

[gslack]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

What ?

Wait....

You're telling me that we are going to revert geologically and atmospherically/climatologically, back to a previous state, because CO2 wasn't in the ground but in the air and so it will return??

Well as colorful as that is, it would show a cycle wouldn't it. And so far no one on the AGW side is willing to concede that there is a pattern so I don't think that's the case here..

Also, Co2 isn't just from the breakdown of bio-matter as we know it. it also comes from the earth itself volcanoes produce a great deal of it. No dead bio-matter needed, lots of things can produce it naturally with or without carbon-based life forms.

 

[Saigon]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

The problem here is assuming that because human acitivity is causing the atmosphere to warm now - humans must have made the atmosphere warm in the past - which we both agree makes no sense.

But our climate does not change dramatically by itself - it changes only when it is forced to change by some force - be that solar activity, the results of massive volcanic activitiy, etc etc. There are forces other than human acitivity which can induce climate change.

Going back through the history of the planet, we know when the climate has warmed, and we know fairly well what caused each spike to temperatures.

We can also map CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and compare that to what happened when volcanic acitivity meant that we had high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere before.

I hope that makes it clearer for you, but by all means ask any questions you like - if you can wade through the spamming!

 

[gslack]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

The problem here is assuming that because human acitivity is causing the atmosphere to warm now - humans must have made the atmosphere warm in the past - which we both agree makes no sense.

But our climate does not change dramatically by itself - it changes only when it is forced to change by some force - be that solar activity, the results of massive volcanic activitiy, etc etc. There are forces other than human acitivity which can induce climate change.

Going back through the history of the planet, we know when the climate has warmed, and we know fairly well what caused each spike to temperatures.

We can also map CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and compare that to what happened when volcanic acitivity meant that we had high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere before.

I hope that makes it clearer for you, but by all means ask any questions you like - if you can wade through the spamming!

Funny how now you can quote people...

BTW, he didn't ask you anything that warranted that explanation.. Matter of fact he didn't ask anything. he made a statement regarding CO2 going from whence it came and how scientists wish and pro AGW pundits wish to prevent this..

Try actually reading what people write for a change, it will help prevent this type of thing...

 

[Foxfyre]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

The problem here is assuming that because human acitivity is causing the atmosphere to warm now - humans must have made the atmosphere warm in the past - which we both agree makes no sense.

But our climate does not change dramatically by itself - it changes only when it is forced to change by some force - be that solar activity, the results of massive volcanic activitiy, etc etc. There are forces other than human acitivity which can induce climate change.

Going back through the history of the planet, we know when the climate has warmed, and we know fairly well what caused each spike to temperatures.

We can also map CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and compare that to what happened when volcanic acitivity meant that we had high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere before.

I hope that makes it clearer for you, but by all means ask any questions you like - if you can wade through the spamming!

Funny how now you can quote people...

BTW, he didn't ask you anything that warranted that explanation.. Matter of fact he didn't ask anything. he made a statement regarding CO2 going from whence it came and how scientists wish and pro AGW pundits wish to prevent this..

Try actually reading what people write for a change, it will help prevent this type of thing...

As several of us have been observing, Saigon's reading dysfunction causes him to read what isn't there and prevents him from reading what is there. So with climate change, as well as in other topics, if he didn't post straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs, perhaps he would have nothing to say at all?

 

[PMZ]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

What ?

Wait....

You're telling me that we are going to revert geologically and atmospherically/climatologically, back to a previous state, because CO2 wasn't in the ground but in the air and so it will return??

Well as colorful as that is, it would show a cycle wouldn't it. And so far no one on the AGW side is willing to concede that there is a pattern so I don't think that's the case here..

Also, Co2 isn't just from the breakdown of bio-matter as we know it. it also comes from the earth itself volcanoes produce a great deal of it. No dead bio-matter needed, lots of things can produce it naturally with or without carbon-based life forms.

Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Fossil fuels are made from biological waste trapped under ground which is made from carbon dioxide.

We know during the years that fossil fuels were sequestered from the atmosphere that atmospheric CO2 concentrations predictably went down, and so did global average temperature. (The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago). Look at the graph that you referenced for that Period. Look at what happened to CO2 concentrations and global temps.

Cause and effect predictable from energy balance. Animal life could not flourish at the start of that period. It did after that period.

For the last 100 years we've been steadily returning to the CO2 concentrations of that period by releasing all of that sequestered greenhouse gas.

Now, we could do nothing and hope that something that we don't know about will save us from what we do know about. But, we know that we will run out of fossil fuels anyway.

So, despite what you wish, private industry is investing in sustainable energy, and the transportation industry is working hard on getting more good, and less waste out of each pound of greenhouse gas we dump into the atmosphere.

We already spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year recovering from AGW enhanced extreme weather.

It's pretty certain that the lowest cost path, based on what we know, goes through fixing, rather than ignoring, AGW.

 

[Foxfyre]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

What ?

Wait....

You're telling me that we are going to revert geologically and atmospherically/climatologically, back to a previous state, because CO2 wasn't in the ground but in the air and so it will return??

Well as colorful as that is, it would show a cycle wouldn't it. And so far no one on the AGW side is willing to concede that there is a pattern so I don't think that's the case here..

Also, Co2 isn't just from the breakdown of bio-matter as we know it. it also comes from the earth itself volcanoes produce a great deal of it. No dead bio-matter needed, lots of things can produce it naturally with or without carbon-based life forms.

Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Fossil fuels are made from biological waste trapped under ground which is made from carbon dioxide.

We know during the years that fossil fuels were sequestered from the atmosphere that atmospheric CO2 concentrations predictably went down, and so did global average temperature. (The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago). Look at the graph that you referenced for that Period. Look at what happened to CO2 concentrations and global temps.

Cause and effect predictable from energy balance. Animal life could not flourish at the start of that period. It did after that period.

For the last 100 years we've been steadily returning to the CO2 concentrations of that period by releasing all of that sequestered greenhouse gas.

Now, we could do nothing and hope that something that we don't know about will save us from what we do know about. But, we know that we will run out of fossil fuels anyway.

So, despite what you wish, private industry is investing in sustainable energy, and the transportation industry is working hard on getting more good, and less waste out of each pound of greenhouse gas we dump into the atmosphere.

We already spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year recovering from AGW enhanced extreme weather.

It's pretty certain that the lowest cost path, based on what we know, goes through fixing, rather than ignoring, AGW.

I didn't have to go past the bolded second sentence in your post to know that your scientific information is somewhat lacking. But setting that aside, yes we do know that climate change appears to be cyclical both short term (within a 1000 year or so period) and long term in which we get into the mega millions and billions of years.

But the question has not been answered, to my satisfaction however, whether significant CO2 increases CAUSE global warming or whether they FOLLOW global warming. Strong cases are made for both points of view.

But you did hit one truth. It is likely that humankind will eventually use fossil fuels faster than they are created in the earth and will eventually have to utilize other forms of energy. I have absolutely complete faith in humankind to figure out how to harness and use new forms of energy by the time we will seriously need them.

But until that time, they are and will continue to be used. Modern humans, after all, are a natural result of evolutionary processes as much as any other living things on Earth are, and there is no reason to think human activity is not as natural as activity of any other living organisms. But since humans of all living organisms have the greater ability to intentionally adapt to changing conditions, why not encourage us to be the best we can be?

Time and again we are told that we cannot return to an earlier, more innocent time of human existence re our morals and values. Why should we believe it any more feasible to return to a more primitive way of life re our energy use? Most especially when it is those already doing a good job who are expected to make the greatest sacrifices while the biggest 'polluters' are given a pass?

I for one do not wish to hand over my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to government entities who have given me no confidence they care about me in any way and their primary motive is to force my obedience and to possess my assets. And I am simply not willing to agree to consigning huge populations of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied ability to exploit their resources as we have already done.

Monitor global warming yes. But we know from the scientific record that plants, animals, and people flourish much more in warmer climates than they do in cold ones. Let's focus on helping people ADAPT to climate change and exploit it rather than perpetuate the often self serving myth that we must change something that in all probability is unchangeable by us.