What Do We Think About Climate Change

Knut, that CO2 follows warming is even agreed to by the IPCC, so you are off the farm on that one.

I stated that the temp data from land based weather stations was unreliable, not atmospheric measurements.

The Antartic pennisula lost a big chunk due to underground volcanic activity. As the air temp is never above freezing, it is not the land ice melting.

If CO2 had the feedback qualities so dear to the warmist theories, we would have been extinct already just by extrapolating their CO2 atmospheric life predictions.

The precautionary principle in the case of AGW would require mass suicide of the human race to accomplish any goal of measurable cooling if it was indeed possible. Care to get the ball rolling? Thought not.

Finally Knut, the argument by authority is only used by those with an empty quiver, or in your case, fishing net.

 

More on the tactics of deception and distorted perception by the AGW KoolAid Cult....................

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/twisted_science_crooked_policy.html

 

quote by Knut:
People are actually killing themselves in cars, in garages, but there is often no conclusive evidence that the ticker stopped by lack of oxygene or too much CO2...? At least you'll have to admit that there is a small probability present; that they die due to a local atmospheric change?


Gads Knut, they die from CO, not CO2, a bit of a difference between monoxide and dioxide. But I'm sure you were just not paying attention, not trying to decieve.

 

Another thought here. What happens when 10 years from now cap and trade is not working? More stringent regulatory fiats. Once we see that the methane goals for animal farts are not being met the next logical step is to outlaw meat consumption. When hydrocarbon goals are not met, outlaw private ownerships of recreational vehicles, then cars. As we will still be heating with home heating oil, put theromstat restrictions on home furnaces. Ban interstate trucking of all but non-essential food and living items. Restrict computer and TV usage by individuals that is not education or work related. Ration electricity by private users to non daylight hours. As meat will be banned, no need for refigerators. Ration water on a per diem per capita basis, no need for long showers anyhow, and what is this fetish for being clean all the time. If we all stink, we won't smell it right? Then, on to health care. Why are we wasting all this energy on old farts who are going to kick the bucket soon anyhow? Put an age cap on health care, (except for the self annointed elite like Boston). When did the mentally disabled contribute to the common good, or the physically for that matter. Hey a horse can live with a healed leg but what good is he,and why do we allow for private ownership of **** machines that can run fast? Same to be said for paraplegics, they don't do so well on the commune farm. It's all for the common good right?

Finally, is it really about the environment, or promoting a social agenda that cannot possibly be accomplished at the ballot box. Like Rahm said, never waste a crisis. In this case, make one up if you need too. The sheep will follow.

May sound exteme now, but look at the proposals being put out there, why use half measures?

 

warning to the readers
a significant portion of what you read on this thread is a deliberate effort to misinform you of the causes and effects of rapid global climate change

please look up the term agnotology and then reread this thread in its entirety (things will become obvious once you have)
clearly
there is an agenda to misinform the public,
based not only on oil and gas industry disinformation,
but on classic disinformation specialists often quoted by participants in this thread
it can even be, and has been shown that some were once employed by the tobacco industry in there disinformation campaign but who are now acting as consultants and as spokespersons employed again in the same kind of role by the oil and gas interests in an effort to commit the same type of fraud

as an example please note my rebuttal to the following

the deniers are so obviously predictable
every tact is a repeat of the same basic denial

point by point

1
there is no conclusive proof that 1+1=2 either

2

3

three separate climate models predictions with the actual observed overlayed
clearly there is a direct relevance to the predictions

4
given the obvious ignorance concerning who the IPCC actually is I will quote from the original UNEP

5
the theory of rapid global climate change was presented and accepted fifty years ago by the scientific community and today its only the politicians and the public that have been suckered by the disinformation campaign of industry into believing otherwise

6
correct
there is no debate
the consensus among scientist who study climate is well established
poles show 97% agreement
one of the largest consensus ever found

7
consideration of non scientific industry disinformation is not acceptable in any rational scientific debate

8
as evidence begins to mount to the contrary the industries that historically benefited from the burning of fossil fuels are desperate to convince an uneducated public that business as usual (profits as usual) is somehow beneficial to all, when clearly the practices of the past have caused significant alterations to the atmospheric chemistry and that those changes run a very high risk of catastrophic consequences

 

Eddy, Thanks.

 

Boston,

Less than a majority (~42%) of the scientists in that poll asserted a belief that humans are causing climate change. You look like an ******* every time you include that 97% ******** in your posts. They would have counted ME in that 97% because I do admit that it warmed during the 20th century.
Also, climate models are not evidence of ANYTHING. When the models are being programmed with KNOWN BAD PARAMETERS, like long-lived CO2 (a parameter which is itself the result of trusting 'best fit' methodology to ascertain parameters for later use), when we already know with CERTAINTY the real life of atmospheric CO2 is short, then the models have become nothing more than propaganda tools, which I suppose suits YOU just fine.

Some of us take exception to this, however.

Jimbo

 

Hi, Boston the Sicentist, be very welcome back once you've licked your wounds!

I knew you could not resist the temptation to come back for more punishment, because I strongly suspect you have not only a moronist but also a masochistic personality.

This place is not the same without you! It was grey these last days and now is colorful again. Thanks!

 

Well, the cap and trade bill has passed the house here in the US. This bill is going to tax companies that emit greenhouse gasses. I think that cow farts were to also be taxed. Electricity bills will go up 90%, gas will go up, food, just about everything. A way to tax people without taxing them directly.

Typical, the government has decided to fix a problem that does not exist. The problem, global warming. This better not pass the senate. Obama can't wait to sign it.

This country is heading further down the tubes thanks to this global warming nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydqg7ThZB04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1TuPG5iSM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3DjsqpGwRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7HX_aKAQdA

 

Modern car engines shall ideally convert
HC's+O2+N2 to H20 +CO2+N2+energy...
Don't need much CO2, nor drop in O2 to get dizzy/ loose consiosness/die...
Engine will still be running, and will when O2 gets below a certain level, start to produce CO, "lean"(?) combustion. Humans have probably, by then, already, travelled on, further up the road....

 

Knut, odd but our emissions testing equipment doesn't measure CO2, it measures CO, and they always call it carbon monoxide poisoning, not dioxide poisoning when folks pull the plug on themselves in the garage, so stop with the silliness and stay on point.

 

Gee Boston, thanks for making my case for me. You didn't rebut anything, just restated assumptions, assertions, and the dogma of your cult. Then point your finger at the bogeyman oil industries. They really don't have a dog in this race. They will make money either way, lots more your way when the cap & tax idiocy cuts down supply through tax gouging, they can simply raise prices to make up the difference. Great plan genius, stay away from food production will you.

 

Boston, you have outdone yourself with the misleading, distortion, deception, and mistatement. You seem to grasp a whole bunch of stray and mud, clasp it in your hands and declare it a brick. Thanks for looking up that "poll" Jimbo, typical of Boston to only tell half the story. That's why his anonymous scientific credentials aren't worth a ****, you can't even trust him to attribute honestly. I love the way he just attacks the oil industry over and over. They spend pennies on funding research compared to the billions governments flush to prop up a social agenda of zero growth masquerading as science.

 

But you live in the wrong century... Suspision confirmed. It was the old days that worked. Nowadays, they don't get the same result from a newer car engine/ exhaust system. So; I'll go for what's finnally gets you in a garage, is lack of oxygen, then, long after the person has been unconsious/ sufficated by lack of oxygen, then the engine during its last efforts to continue operating, will start to produce CO....

A classic vintage car (or a motorcycle), on the other hand..... should be prescribed by doctors...:?:

Quote (Wiki):

Suicide
As other poisons such as cyanide and arsenic were placed under increasingly stringent legal restrictions, town gas, with its high levels of carbon monoxide, became a common method of suicide by poisoning. Suicide has often been committed by inhaling the exhaust fumes of a running car engine, particularly in an enclosed space such as a garage. In the past, motor car exhaust may have contained up to 25% carbon monoxide; but newer cars have catalytic converters, which can eliminate over 99% of carbon monoxide produced.[73] However, even cars with catalytic converters can produce substantial carbon monoxide if an idling car is left in an enclosed space.[74]

As carbon monoxide poisoning via car exhaust has become less of a suicide option, there has been an increase in new methods of carbon monoxide poisoning such as burning charcoal or other fossil fuels within a confined space, such as a small room, tent, or car.[75] Such incidents have occurred mostly in connection with group suicide pacts in both Japan and Hong Kong,[76][77][78] but are starting to occur in Western countries as well, such as the 2007 suicide of Boston lead singer Brad Delp.[79]​

Quote end

 

Knut, stick to making little kids cry about polar bears their parents aren't killing with their suv's. Here in Connecticut, we test for HC, Co, and Nox gases, not CO2, I know that because I run a test center. CO2 is still not considered a pollutant, but a natural product of life. Keep up the research on suicide though, that brings a lot to the table on AGW, about as much as Bostons tortured and twisted attribution and deception.