The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[SSDD]

Threadcop here. No reports, but a few were treading on thin ice.

The few things catching notice were insults-without-content posts, which is trolling. Insults with content is a normal post. Don't just make an insult. Add content and make an insult, then you're not trolling and you're fine.

Maybe you should review some of your own posting "thread cop".

 

[SSDD]

That wikki article is a fluff piece citing the IPCC distinctly. Wikki can be a good source or it can be crap, it's the nature of an open forum like that. Kind of like your posts are crap yet some others posts here are not..

Sock puppet.

You really have to chuckle over anyone who references wiki with any seriousness considering thier history in regards to climate articles. You know they recently found another one of the gatekeepers altering and deleting. Wiki is as big a joke as skeptical science.

 

[PMZ]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country itself.

Your preference for President has nothing to do with science. After all, you preferred Bush/Cheney to Gore/Lieberman when most of America didn't for real good reason.

If you had lost and we had won we'd have a surplus now instead of a $17T debt.

Ah so that was YOU that was standing next to me at the polling booth!

You know nothing of my "preferences". Wander off son.[/QUOTE,]

Your avatar was just a random choice? The crap that you spew came from indepemdant thinking and just happens to coincide word for word with a Rush and Rupert script bought and paid for by the GOP? Your AGW ignorance just happens to be word for word like all of your friends who slept through the third grade?

Dad, you are an exact duplicate of your little friends.

 

[mamooth]

Some people only speak one language. And that's all that they understand. I use whatever language gets through. And I use it regardless of who is happy or angry about it.

But has it changed anyone's behavior?

The other side thinks that all you understand is force, and that they're putting you in your place, and are declaring how much fun they're having doing it. After a certain point, everyone sounds alike.

I've done it too. We all have. I'm not telling people to be perfect, or running to the mods for every insult. It's not the Clean Debate Zone. But when I see pages of naught but back-and-forth pissing matches without any content, that's a problem.

 

[PMZ]

Some people only speak one language. And that's all that they understand. I use whatever language gets through. And I use it regardless of who is happy or angry about it.

But has it changed anyone's behavior?

The other side thinks that all you understand is force, and that they're putting you in your place, and are declaring how much fun they're having doing it. After a certain point, everyone sounds alike.

I've done it too. We all have. I'm not telling people to be perfect, or running to the mods for every insult. It's not the Clean Debate Zone. But when I see pages of naught but back-and-forth pissing matches without any content, that's a problem.

It's newly always impossible to save people from themselves. However, I imagine that there are a few engaged here or passing through who still have at least a piece of open mind and some science curiosity.

If that's true, they have a right to know that both sides of this issue are not equally considered. One is science, the other is politics. One offers evidence, the other offers monsters in the closet.

 

[PMZ]

BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants.

So living things, not "life", are built directly or indirectly from CO2.

That has nothing to do with the GHG properties of CO2.

If you have any questions, ask one of the older kids.

 

[IanC]

Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science

Who made the determination of what they should have known at the time of publishing?

You are intent on proving conspiracy. I see no value in that. I believe them to be good science advocates on an honorable mission to get us doing what's required of us rather than what we'd prefer to be.

I have little patience with irresponsibility.

the IPCC working group makes the determination! if they had wanted to stonewall it, nothing would have been done. how on earth is that looking for a conspiracy. if they had ignored Lewis' documentation, that could have led to insinuations of conspiracy. but they didn't. unfortunately they didn't actually get it right when they corrected it either. perhaps I am intent on proving incompetence. incompetency theorist. nah, just doesn't have the same ring to it. besides, I would have too many examples to go after.

 

[flacaltenn]

Threadcop here. No reports, but a few were treading on thin ice.

The few things catching notice were insults-without-content posts, which is trolling. Insults with content is a normal post. Don't just make an insult. Add content and make an insult, then you're not trolling and you're fine.

Honestly dude/dudette.. I haven't seen this much primadonna drama since the last time my parents sentenced me to 30 days at Camp Widgewagan for the summer..

And THAT'S what YOU consider "adding content"?? Get off my cloud...

 

[itfitzme]

Want to threaten me weasel?

Nope. I have no interest in such a pissing match.

I did, however, report you. We'll let the mods work it out. And if you think someone is a sock, tell the mods and let them work it out.

The ignore list is nice. *It filters the noise quite well. If not for your responding to him, I'd hardly know he existed. *

Occasionally, I like to count information entropy. A measure is simply the amount of information per word, paragraph, or post. *You can count whatever you like, as information. *It's a personal, relative measure. *

[info*entropy]=[count of useful info]/[# words, paragraphs, or posts]

Gslack, for instance, is all just emotional info about himself, info of which I have no interest and just gets classified as noise. For all intents and purposes, he's a yapping poodle. If I should bother to count the useful info per post, it is zero. *
[info*entropy]~=0

Gslack doesn't even work as a study in abnormal psychology. *There are a few posters who's rantings acually reveal something. *As information goes, we can count any classification that we want. *If my interest is AWG, then AWG info gets counted and the rest is noise. *If my interest is abby normal
psych, then words like "hurt", "incarcerate", etc get * counted, and the rest is noise. *Thing with gslack is that, even then, there is no info. *"Want to threaten me weasel?" There is no useful or interesting info there.*It is more like a barking poodle. *"Bark,*Bark,*Bark, Bark, Bark", no info, five words.
[info entropy] = 0_info / 5_words = 0.

On the other hand, I spent the last half hour reading a report on temperature measurement adjustments, provided in a link by either mamooth or PMZ. The shear volume of info far exceeded the number of words in the post providing the link. As such, my information measure far exceeded one. *
[info*entropy] >> 1

I've lost my interest in abnormal psych. *The barking poodles are meaningless. *As someone notes, they're not going to change. So the iggy filter is working quite well and I don't feel like I might miss something. *I know I wont miss anything because I've measured the info entropy and it is zero.

 

[gslack]

BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants.

So living things, not "life", are built directly or indirectly from CO2.

That has nothing to do with the GHG properties of CO2.

If you have any questions, ask one of the older kids.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

 

[PMZ]

BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants.

So living things, not "life", are built directly or indirectly from CO2.

That has nothing to do with the GHG properties of CO2.

If you have any questions, ask one of the older kids.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

I told you to ask some of the older third graders!

Here's question that I can't wait to hear your answer to.

Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?

Wait for it.......wait for it.......

 

[peach174]

It stopped getting warmer 16 years ago.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

 

[itfitzme]

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.*

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

Holly crap. *I had to un-iggy this one, when I read PMZs reply.

**I just had everyone here read your post. *Most are rolling on the floor laughing. The rest are just stunned. *You made the stoned dude laugh so hard he pissed his pants. *Someone asked, "When do we learn this, third grade?"

CO2 = CARBON diOxide. Get it? *One CARBON and two oxygen. *The plant uses it's magic and uses the carbon leaving O2, the stuff we breath.

I'd feel bad for you if you weren't so obnoxious.

 

[peach174]

BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants.

So living things, not "life", are built directly or indirectly from CO2.

That has nothing to do with the GHG properties of CO2.

If you have any questions, ask one of the older kids.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

I told you to ask some of the older third graders!

Here's question that I can't wait to hear your answer to.

Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?

Wait for it.......wait for it.......

Plants make themselves out of carbon dioxide from the air and water and a few minerals from the soil. They do this with the aid of sunlight, in a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, which means “putting together with light.”


Humans breathe in oxygen (O) and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants do the reverse. They “breathe in” CO2 and “breathe out” oxygen (O). This is why plant life is an essential part of the worlds’ ecosystem. Without plants, CO2 levels would rise to intolerable levels. Plants use CO2 for growth. It is the essential building block for photosynthesis (along with light and water). Plants cannot grow without CO2. The current levels in the atmosphere are about 350 parts per million (PPM). It is theorized that millions of years ago, levels of CO2 were about 1,500 PPM. Throughout the years, plants have evolved in many ways–and in many ways have stayed the same.

 

[PMZ]

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

I told you to ask some of the older third graders!

Here's question that I can't wait to hear your answer to.

Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?

Wait for it.......wait for it.......

Plants make themselves out of carbon dioxide from the air and water and a few minerals from the soil. They do this with the aid of sunlight, in a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, which means “putting together with light.”


Humans breathe in oxygen (O) and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants do the reverse. They “breathe in” CO2 and “breathe out” oxygen (O). This is why plant life is an essential part of the worlds’ ecosystem. Without plants, CO2 levels would rise to intolerable levels. Plants use CO2 for growth. It is the essential building block for photosynthesis (along with light and water). Plants cannot grow without CO2. The current levels in the atmosphere are about 350 parts per million (PPM). It is theorized that millions of years ago, levels of CO2 were about 1,500 PPM. Throughout the years, plants have evolved in many ways–and in many ways have stayed the same.

Long, but very interesting. Shows how many scientists are hoping for help from nature in getting us out of the jam that we've put ourselves in.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon#page=1

 

[itfitzme]

It stopped getting warmer 16 years ago.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

If your a statistics nube. *Otherwise, its just another random variation. *It's flattened off, even declined before. *Watch, a few mord years and up it will go. Everyone hopes you are right. Few are dumb enough to take that bet.

Oh look, it's in the range of the expected error.

You should avoid stock market trading and Las Vegas. Odds aren't your strong suit.

 

[Wyld Kard]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

I told you to ask some of the older third graders!

Here's question that I can't wait to hear your answer to.*

Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?

Wait for it.......wait for it.......

Plants make themselves out of carbon dioxide from the air and water and a few minerals from the soil. They do this with the aid of sunlight, in a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, which means “putting together with light.”


Humans breathe in oxygen (O) and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants do the reverse. They “breathe in” CO2 and “breathe out” oxygen (O). This is why plant life is an essential part of the worlds’ ecosystem. Without plants, CO2 levels would rise to intolerable levels. Plants use CO2 for growth. It is the essential building block for photosynthesis (along with light and water). Plants cannot grow without CO2. The current levels in the atmosphere are about 350 parts per million (PPM). It is theorized that millions of years ago, levels of CO2 were about 1,500 PPM. Throughout the years, plants have evolved in many ways–and in many ways have stayed the same.

Normally, when plants and animals die, bacteria oxidises

The bacteria oxidizes? No...no... that's not right...*

Or the bacteria aids the plant matter in oxidizing? *No, really... Everyone doesn't remember everything....*

Right now, someone here is giving me "are you an idiot" look because I don't know who Jessica Alba is. *Fantastic Four, actress, played the invisible women.

I gladly read below my grade level. *I forget, I never learned it.

Okay... Bacteria oxidizes the plant matter. *Jessica Alba played the invisible women in Fantastic Four. *And plants turn CO2 into O2, somehow using the suns energy to break the molecular bond. **Photosynthesis means "putting together with light". Oh, it is now said the plant relies on quantum processes to channel the photons.


I'm learning now!

 

[mamooth]

Every conspiracy theory cult has these little cult videos that want you to watch.

And no one does. If you're not capable of stating and supporting your point yourself, you aren't informed enough to be part of the conversation.

 

[itfitzme]

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube

Perfect. You're a dummy and you have a dumb explainaton.

Now maybe you can explain photosynthesis to gslack.