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

[PMZ]

Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.

"Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post. "

Fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons we call them. Or if we eat them, carbohydrates.

Hydrogen generally from water.

Carbon from organic compounds like expired life forms.

Before they expired, these life forms grew themselves from what they took in. For plants, mostly carbon dioxide. For animals, mostly plants, or plant eating animals.

Carbon based life forms.

Ain't science grand?

Um, CO2 doesn't have any hydrogen in it either. But my point was that your statement that fossil fuels are made from CO2 really doesn't sound like something a scientist would say. Or anybody who took highschool chemistry would say for that matter. And you have claimed to be a scientist in your 'we scientists' line in another post.

That's why I said hydrogen, mostly from water.

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

That's where ignorance of science will lead humanity unless we continue to ignore you.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post. "

Fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons we call them. Or if we eat them, carbohydrates.

Hydrogen generally from water.

Carbon from organic compounds like expired life forms.

Before they expired, these life forms grew themselves from what they took in. For plants, mostly carbon dioxide. For animals, mostly plants, or plant eating animals.

Carbon based life forms.

Ain't science grand?

Um, CO2 doesn't have any hydrogen in it either. But my point was that your statement that fossil fuels are made from CO2 really doesn't sound like something a scientist would say. Or anybody who took highschool chemistry would say for that matter. And you have claimed to be a scientist in your 'we scientists' line in another post.

That's why I said hydrogen, mostly from water.

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

That's where ignorance of science will lead humanity unless we continue to ignore you.

I have only six hours of college geology, but that is enough, Sir, to be pretty damn sure you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I suggest you read up on the Carboniferous period, why it is called that, and the process of creating fossil fuels before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.

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?

No, they are not made of CO2, but the organics from which they are made, was once CO2. Or is a referance to the carbon cycle in biology beyond your so limited knowledge?

AOL Search

 

[Old Rocks]

Um, CO2 doesn't have any hydrogen in it either. But my point was that your statement that fossil fuels are made from CO2 really doesn't sound like something a scientist would say. Or anybody who took highschool chemistry would say for that matter. And you have claimed to be a scientist in your 'we scientists' line in another post.

That's why I said hydrogen, mostly from water.

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

That's where ignorance of science will lead humanity unless we continue to ignore you.

I have only six hours of college geology, but that is enough, Sir, to be pretty damn sure you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I suggest you read up on the Carboniferous period, why it is called that, and the process of creating fossil fuels before you embarrass yourself any further.

LOL. From your posts, I would say that you have never learned much in that class. And my last Geology class was Eng. Geology, 470/570.

No, I did not finish then, and so now I am in the process of finishing. 22 credits this year, while working 40 to 45 hours a week as a millwright in a steel mill.

And there are many petroleum deposites from the Tertiary.

http://cseg.ca/assets/files/resources/abstracts/2003/440S0203.pdf

ABSTRACT
This story was born in the South Atlantic margin basins, skipped along East Africa and progressed around SE Asia. We show examples in Tertiary sequences in basins (Congo Fan, Angola; Baram Delta, NW Borneo; Campos Basin, Brazil; Pearl River Mouth Basin, China; Rufiji Trough/Lamu Basin of Kenya/Tanzania; Niger Delta, Nigeria) where striking correlations were observed between geologic features that control sedimentation and signatures of multiple potential field attributes.
Working in a GIS environment enabled faster, more precise interpretations and digital presentation of results. Stacking hundreds of geo-referenced images from published experts on GETECH’s multi-featured potential fields data allowed the reinterpretation, realignment and extrapolation of long-recognized features. Data signatures in map view yielded unexpected geologic inferences using simple tools and basic concepts.
The study began with reinterpreted extents of continental, oceanic and mixed crust to help investigate hydrocarbon maturation. However, the regional work revealed surprising correlations between gravity imagery and published reservoir and source distributions such as:
- inter-raft sediment pathways, post-salt depocentres and unconfined basin floor fans, Congo Fan
- basement control on Oligocene fans, bypass zones and source pod locations, Campos Basin
- correlations between gas hydrates, toe thrust belts and basement structure, Niger Delta
- hydrocarbon migration catchments offshore Kenya/Tanzania
- projections of base of slope/basin floor fans, offshore NW Borneo

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625a/Chapters/ES.pdf

The current coal resource assessment investigations in the Northern Rocky
Mountains and Great Plains region concentrated on selected coal beds and zones in
rocks of Tertiary age in four basins—coal resources that are most likely to be
utilized in the next 20-30 years. These coal deposits are described in detail and
estimates of quantity and quality are made for the Powder River Basin in Wyoming
and Montana, the Williston Basin in North Dakota, the Greater Green River Basin in
Wyoming, and the Hanna-Carbon Basin in Wyoming. Coal availability and
recoverability for selected areas in the Powder River Basin are assessed, as well.
Table ES-1 summarizes the total resources in millions of short tons in each of the
four assessed basins. In other basins in the region, Tertiary coal resources that are
less likely to be utilized in the next 20-30 years are summarized but were not
assessed. These unassessed areas include the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming; Bull

 

[Foxfyre]

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources. Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology? Right out of your own head and knowledged? Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?

 

[PMZ]

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources. Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology? Right out of your own head and knowledged? Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?

Where do you believe that the carbon in hydrocarbons came from?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.

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?

No, they are not made of CO2, but the organics from which they are made, was once CO2. Or is a referance to the carbon cycle in biology beyond your so limited knowledge?

AOL Search

CO2 at different times is a byproduct of and also a component of various geological and biological processes and phenoma yes. But you want us to believe that CO2 existed before carbon and oxygen existed? Are you really attempting to make a case for that? You are saying as PMZ said that fossil fuels are made from CO2? Your link sure as hell doesn't make a case for that. Geez Old Rocks. You really do need to demand your money back from all those science courses you claim you are taking.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.

No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.

So you don't think CO2 breaks down into it's base elements, but rather stays as CO2 through out the eons like PMZ is implying here?

OF course you do, because you are a moron, and like PMZ full of it..

 

[gslack]

Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.

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?

"Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post. "

Fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons we call them. Or if we eat them, carbohydrates.

Hydrogen generally from water.

Carbon from organic compounds like expired life forms.

Before they expired, these life forms grew themselves from what they took in. For plants, mostly carbon dioxide. For animals, mostly plants, or plant eating animals.

Carbon based life forms.

Ain't science grand?

Dude you are an idiot...

Carbon exists already. It's there naturally BEFORE CO2, BEFORE LIFE, BEFORE YOU, BEFORE PLANTS...

It's an element dumbass, it was created. Sea life is also carbon based, even though they live in water. Jesus man, you're just rambling nonsense..

You just ignore when your stupidity is outed and keep on rambling like it didn't happen..

Scientist? My ass...

 

[gslack]

Oldsocks, kid is at it again. PMZ or whatever her goes by now is using the same nonsensical arguments he used previously as konradv.

The dead give away is all the pro-agw posters giving him a free pass to post whatever idiotic nonsense he wishes, without a word to correct any of it..

If I or anybody made such ant--scientific claims they would one and all attack to no end. Yet it comes from one of their own so it's all good. Their desperation to help him and make it seem logical is all too funny..

Be careful boys, his ignorance is getting worse, and his circle talk is backing him into a corner. He usually spends his time posting conspiracy theories, so just be warned...

 

[PMZ]

Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.

"Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post. "

Fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons we call them. Or if we eat them, carbohydrates.

Hydrogen generally from water.

Carbon from organic compounds like expired life forms.

Before they expired, these life forms grew themselves from what they took in. For plants, mostly carbon dioxide. For animals, mostly plants, or plant eating animals.

Carbon based life forms.

Ain't science grand?

Dude you are an idiot...

Carbon exists already. It's there naturally BEFORE CO2, BEFORE LIFE, BEFORE YOU, BEFORE PLANTS...

It's an element dumbass, it was created. Sea life is also carbon based, even though they live in water. Jesus man, you're just rambling nonsense..

You just ignore when your stupidity is outed and keep on rambling like it didn't happen..

Scientist? My ass...

So, in your scientific opinion, fossil fuels assembled themselves from stray bits of carbon and hydrogen laying around in their elemental form?


I think that any 9th grader who claimed that would find himself back 8th.

 

[gslack]

"Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post. "

Fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons we call them. Or if we eat them, carbohydrates.

Hydrogen generally from water.

Carbon from organic compounds like expired life forms.

Before they expired, these life forms grew themselves from what they took in. For plants, mostly carbon dioxide. For animals, mostly plants, or plant eating animals.

Carbon based life forms.

Ain't science grand?

Dude you are an idiot...

Carbon exists already. It's there naturally BEFORE CO2, BEFORE LIFE, BEFORE YOU, BEFORE PLANTS...

It's an element dumbass, it was created. Sea life is also carbon based, even though they live in water. Jesus man, you're just rambling nonsense..

You just ignore when your stupidity is outed and keep on rambling like it didn't happen..

Scientist? My ass...

So, in your scientific opinion, fossil fuels assembled themselves from stray bits of carbon and hydrogen laying around in their elemental form?


I think that any 9th grader who claimed that would find himself back 8th.

No ding dong, You seem to think CO2 created life, or life created CO2,or that life is CO2 based, or that CO2 remains CO2 throughout the cycle, and never breaks down to its base elements..

Which is it this time BS man?

Remember when you implied that you had never heard of base elements before? LOL, you implied you're a scientists yet you never heard the term used to describe the breakdown of compounds into their base elements. Gimme a break dude...

Dude you first implied CO2 was an element, then you implied all life came from CO2, then you claimed fossil fuels were created in the carboniferous period, when they weren't created then, they were created in the eons since that period, from bio-matter from that period.

Dude you have about 2% of actual knowledge on this, and it shows. Your claims are nonsensical and inaccurately based on things that have some truth in them.

You ignore posts that call you on this until you have no choice and it's too obvious to do so. This fake scientist crap is tiresome and getting older by the minute.

 

[Saigon]

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources. Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology? Right out of your own head and knowledged? Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?

Both Old Rocks and PMZ are absolutely correct.

No one said that fossil fuels are made out of CO2.

This article gives you a basic overview:

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This part of the debate began when foxfyre seemed not to understand what PMZ meant by carbon sequestration - here is an overview of that, too:

Carbon sequestration is the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)[1] and may refer specifically to:

"The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir."[2] When carried out deliberately, this may also be referred to as carbon dioxide removal, which is a form of geoengineering.
The process of carbon capture and storage, where carbon dioxide is removed from flue gases, such as on power stations, before being stored in underground reservoirs.
Natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and reservoirs, such as by chemical weathering of rocks.

Carbon sequestration describes long-term storage of carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon to either mitigate or defer global warming and avoid dangerous climate change. It has been proposed as a way to slow the atmospheric and marine accumulation of greenhouse gases, which are released by burning fossil fuels.[3]

Carbon dioxide is naturally captured from the atmosphere through biological, chemical or physical processes. Some anthropogenic sequestration techniques exploit these natural processes,[4] while some use entirely artificial processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

I think this makes the facts quite clear, and hopefully Foxfyre will be open and honest enough to admit that.

 

[gslack]

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources. Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology? Right out of your own head and knowledged? Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?

Both Old Rocks and PMZ are absolutely correct.

No one said that fossil fuels are made out of CO2.

This article gives you a basic overview:

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try Saigon, but his words have been seen over and again. If he were a scientist, he would have stated what he meant in way that reflected what you claim he meant. They don't and his words show this.

You and oldoscks show desperation in trying to tell us what he actually means or meant, but his words are very clear. And if he were the scientist he claims he is, and you two seem to believe, he could do this easily the first time and wouldn't need your constant gardening..

 

[PMZ]

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources. Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology? Right out of your own head and knowledged? Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?

Both Old Rocks and PMZ are absolutely correct.

No one said that fossil fuels are made out of CO2.

This article gives you a basic overview:

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try Saigon, but his words have been seen over and again. If he were a scientist, he would have stated what he meant in way that reflected what you claim he meant. They don't and his words show this.

You and oldoscks show desperation in trying to tell us what he actually means or meant, but his words are very clear. And if he were the scientist he claims he is, and you two seem to believe, he could do this easily the first time and wouldn't need your constant gardening..

This whole thread is a telling example of today's troubles, which stem periodically in history from a common condition. The empowerment of ignorance over knowledge. The most notable example of which are labeled the Dark Ages.

Humanity became dominant over lesser species by thinking and specialization. We each could choose to dedicate our lives to specific studies, contribute to the expansion of mankind's total knowledge in that area, but pay the price of having to rely on other folks, who chose other specialties, to do their job too.

Periodically that train gets derailed, and people start assuming that knowledge is a right, not an effort, and that all opinions on all topics are equally probable to be correct.

Thus we have very, very inexpert junior scientists selling the little that they know, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

To me, that is a time to follow the money. They are selling something, but not what's claimed.

 

[gslack]

Both Old Rocks and PMZ are absolutely correct.

No one said that fossil fuels are made out of CO2.

This article gives you a basic overview:

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try Saigon, but his words have been seen over and again. If he were a scientist, he would have stated what he meant in way that reflected what you claim he meant. They don't and his words show this.

You and oldoscks show desperation in trying to tell us what he actually means or meant, but his words are very clear. And if he were the scientist he claims he is, and you two seem to believe, he could do this easily the first time and wouldn't need your constant gardening..

This whole thread is a telling example of today's troubles, which stem periodically in history from a common condition. The empowerment of ignorance over knowledge. The most notable example of which are labeled the Dark Ages.

Humanity became dominant over lesser species by thinking and specialization. We each could choose to dedicate our lives to specific studies, contribute to the expansion of mankind's total knowledge in that area, but pay the price of having to rely on other folks, who chose other specialties, to do their job too.

Periodically that train gets derailed, and people start assuming that knowledge is a right, not an effort, and that all opinions on all topics are equally probable to be correct.

Thus we have very, very inexpert junior scientists selling the little that they know, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

To me, that is a time to follow the money. They are selling something, but not what's claimed.

You just had a Billy Madison moment... I'm stunned, truly. You wrote 4 paragraphs, went from today's troubles, the dark ages, and then onto junior scientists, only to end it with "follow the money". And the amazing thing here is, not at any point did you address either the thread topic, or my post you responded to...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Amazing..

 

[Foxfyre]

Nice try Saigon, but his words have been seen over and again. If he were a scientist, he would have stated what he meant in way that reflected what you claim he meant. They don't and his words show this.

You and oldoscks show desperation in trying to tell us what he actually means or meant, but his words are very clear. And if he were the scientist he claims he is, and you two seem to believe, he could do this easily the first time and wouldn't need your constant gardening..

This whole thread is a telling example of today's troubles, which stem periodically in history from a common condition. The empowerment of ignorance over knowledge. The most notable example of which are labeled the Dark Ages.

Humanity became dominant over lesser species by thinking and specialization. We each could choose to dedicate our lives to specific studies, contribute to the expansion of mankind's total knowledge in that area, but pay the price of having to rely on other folks, who chose other specialties, to do their job too.

Periodically that train gets derailed, and people start assuming that knowledge is a right, not an effort, and that all opinions on all topics are equally probable to be correct.

Thus we have very, very inexpert junior scientists selling the little that they know, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

To me, that is a time to follow the money. They are selling something, but not what's claimed.

You just had a Billy Madison moment... I'm stunned, truly. You wrote 4 paragraphs, went from today's troubles, the dark ages, and then onto junior scientists, only to end it with "follow the money". And the amazing thing here is, not at any point did you address either the thread topic, or my post you responded to...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Amazing..

Grinning and stepping onto soapbox. . . .

You know, after spending quite a few years in this medium I have made some observations and have drawn some conclusions.

We all know there are numbnuts who do nothing but troll message boards. Their only contribution is some sort of idiotic expression or insult usually totally unrelated to the topic. To admin's credit, they have implemented some policy that has weeded out quite a few of these and I for one appreciate that a lot.

But then there are the smarter ones who do this as a hobby or form of recreation and without any personal interest in actually learning something, sharing something, teaching something, engaging in debate, or testing their opinions/theories. These are masters at subtlety but quite effective in giving the impression they are participating, but in fact are deliberately and intentionally derailing the thread. That is their motive. Some are quite good at it. And when they succeed, I'm sure they privately gloat that they have met their goal.

And then you have those folks who entertain themselves by writing elaborate wordy expoundings that, when you look at them closely, say absolutely nothing. And if they get somebody to take the bait and actually seriously comment on the nothingness of their post, they almost certainly snicker and pat themselves on the back. They are thrilled they got somebody to take the bait.

I'm happy that you were a smart fish and didn't.

Stepping off the soapbox.

 

[gslack]

This whole thread is a telling example of today's troubles, which stem periodically in history from a common condition. The empowerment of ignorance over knowledge. The most notable example of which are labeled the Dark Ages.

Humanity became dominant over lesser species by thinking and specialization. We each could choose to dedicate our lives to specific studies, contribute to the expansion of mankind's total knowledge in that area, but pay the price of having to rely on other folks, who chose other specialties, to do their job too.

Periodically that train gets derailed, and people start assuming that knowledge is a right, not an effort, and that all opinions on all topics are equally probable to be correct.

Thus we have very, very inexpert junior scientists selling the little that they know, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

To me, that is a time to follow the money. They are selling something, but not what's claimed.

You just had a Billy Madison moment... I'm stunned, truly. You wrote 4 paragraphs, went from today's troubles, the dark ages, and then onto junior scientists, only to end it with "follow the money". And the amazing thing here is, not at any point did you address either the thread topic, or my post you responded to...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Amazing..

Grinning and stepping onto soapbox. . . .

You know, after spending quite a few years in this medium I have made some observations and have drawn some conclusions.

We all know there are numbnuts who do nothing but troll message boards. Their only contribution is some sort of idiotic expression or insult usually totally unrelated to the topic. To admin's credit, they have implemented some policy that has weeded out quite a few of these and I for one appreciate that a lot.

But then there are the smarter ones who do this as a hobby or form of recreation and without any personal interest in actually learning something, sharing something, teaching something, engaging in debate, or testing their opinions/theories. These are masters at subtlety but quite effective in giving the impression they are participating, but in fact are deliberately and intentionally derailing the thread. That is their motive. Some are quite good at it. And when they succeed, I'm sure they privately gloat that they have met their goal.

And then you have those folks who entertain themselves by writing elaborate wordy expoundings that, when you look at them closely, say absolutely nothing. And if they get somebody to take the bait and actually seriously comment on the nothingness of their post, they almost certainly snicker and pat themselves on the back. They are thrilled they got somebody to take the bait.

I'm happy that you were a smart fish and didn't.

Stepping off the soapbox.

LOL,yeah the nonsense can get blinding and if a person isn't careful they can fall into the void of circle talk.

Talking to that guy is like a spiritual discussion with Shirley MacLaine. A lot of talk about nothing, and crap she pulls out her metaphysical, as well as physical butt.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I assume you have had a look at the two links I posted on the carbon cycle - does that now make sense to you?

Do you now understand PMZ's original point?


btw - please try and stay on topic!

 

[westwall]

These guys post links to people like Anthony Watts, an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and expect those links to be accepted as equally credible to the links to articles from peer reviewed scientific journals.

Still remains, no Scientific Societies anywhere on earth deny AGW. Not even in Outer Slobovia. No National Academy of Science denies AGW. Not even that of Saudi Arabia. And no major university in the world has a policy statement that denies AGW.

All we have are fruitloops and big energy doing the denial.

Oh looky here...they're finally coming around....


"The MoS has campaigned tirelessly against the folly of Britain’s eco-obsessed energy policy. Now comes a game-changing intervention... from an expert respected by the green fanatics themselves

Last week, I was part of a group of academics who published a paper saying that the faster, more alarming, projections of the rate at which the globe is warming look less likely than previously thought.


That may mean we can afford to reduce carbon dioxide emissions slightly slower than some previously feared – but as almost everyone agrees, they still have to come down.


So the time has come to focus on something just as important: that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems."


Read more: Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online