Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Discussion in 'Science' started by Robert, Mar 11, 2017.

  1. KAMALAYKA

    KAMALAYKA Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do know that the scientific community is international, right? The US government does not have a monopoly on scientific research.

    Oh, and even if what you claim is true, what is the motive? Of all the things to lie about, why global warming? The people who stand to gain or lose the most are the Big Oil companies.
     
    Guno, Sallyally and Bowerbird like this.
  2. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,100
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Prove it....
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What part of GLOBAL is difficult for the right in America to understand

    For this to be a conspiracy EVERY scientific organisation in the world has to be in on it because every scientific organisation in the world has signed an agreement stating that global warming is happening.

    Have you ANY idea how many scientists world wide would be involved if this were a conspiracy?? The IPCC alone had over 5,000 authors
     
    Sallyally and politicalcenter like this.
  4. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of all the things to lie about, global war mists get big grants to add to the fear and control of the masses. Grant money talks. Oil companies don't pay out to universities like government does.
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Prove it

    Meanwhile down at the Big Oil and Coal company trough


    This latest revelation is significant because in recent years, fossil fuel companies have become more careful to cover their tracks. An analysis by Robert Brulle found that from 2003 to 2010, organisations promoting climate misinformation received more than US$900 million of corporate funding per year.

    However, Brulle found that from 2008, open funding dropped while funding through untraceable donor networks such as Donors Trust (otherwise known as the “dark money ATM”) increased. This allowed corporations to fund climate science denial while hiding their support.

    The decrease in open funding of climate misinformation coincided with efforts to draw public attention to the corporate funding of climate science denial. A prominent example is Bob Ward, formerly of the UK Royal Society, who in 2006 challenged Exxon-Mobil to stop funding denialist organisations.

    http://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273

    900 million over just seven years- and that was only what we could trace. All of that moolah went into only a few lucrative denialist coffers

    So, have you got anything showing similar funding for what you call "alarmists"?
     
    ecco and Guno like this.
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the kind of hyperbole that cements the contention that folks, like OMOF above aren't actually interested in the idea that climate changes, but that they can effect an outcome because of it. So, because they have a lever, AGW, they assume that having asserted some baseless talking point, "in modern times, there was stasis"... "no on truly knows the future"... "there is no way to positively know"...

    See the trend there? Start from a position which isn't exactly not true, assert that total understanding of a process isn't actually necessary to act, and then, suggest that predictability of outcomes isn't an expectation.

    Yes, we are paying close attention. The problem is that in doing so, it undermines the AGW narrative. So, the assertion that "in modern times there was stasis', simply ignores the sticky issue of establishing the timeline for what "modern" then means. So, a half baked slice view that supports their narrative is all we get. Of course it's dishonest. Of course that narrative doesn't begin to express the complexity of the process, but it's consumable for the simple minded. Frankly, that's the only reason folks in the AGW crowd use it. It provides the key influencer to their propaganda and faith.

    That is the secret sauce. The dirty little secret about AGW. It's premised on a fallacy. So, when all of the associable qualifications then get attributed, the "well, we don't know anything for certain" (except that they believe in this garbage, and certainly aren't shy about telling folks in the most evangelical way possible) which leads to the second fallacy, that taking action, even the wrong action, is the only thing that is important.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  7. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, since I didn't say that, or infer it, Ill suggest that yes, you misunderstood. As to the Dinosaurs, getting smacked by a city sized space object has consequences. Would you disagree?

    Yes, the Earth will endure. And life, as has been demonstrated, will also endure. Isn't that the point of evolution? And, how conceited is it to believe that the human species is the apex of that process? But, that's part of the explanation of why AGW has such a religious aspect to it. It thrives on the conceit of it's followers and the uncertainty that apocalyptic propaganda produces.
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Rubbish!!! The only ones with any degree of religious fervour are denialists acting like medieval papists confronting Gallileo
     
    ecco likes this.
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for demonstrating the maturity of your argument. Shall we take this to the sandbox now? :roflol:
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Instead of evading like that, why don't you explain your double standards? You made totally unsupported accusations that the other side is religious, then you do this when when the tables were turned. Shouldn't it be fine for others to do what you constantly do?

    Being you get so upset when you're called out to back up your unsupported claims, let's keep doing that.

    Show your evidence that anyone on the rational side thinks "The human species is the apex of evolution", as you claimed. Note that more repetition of your usual "Because I say so!" tactics is not evidence. Where did you come up with such a crazy idea?

    Show your evidence that anyone on the rational side is using "apocalyptic propaganda". After all, you're the only person here talking about the end of humanity. All such propaganda appears to be coming from you and other deniers. Why are you pretending it's the rational people doing it, when it's clearly just you doing it?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  11. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what you replied to because I have placed several conceited followers on Ignore, a truly wonderful feature. But you are spot on, Friend.

    DRIVEN by the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for AGW *research* (which always confirms what they planned for it to confirm) as well as the contributions of hypocrites, particularly wealthy ones, who donate money to hundreds of organizations "fighting climate change" while they sell eco-tours (sic), and expeditions around the world that don't even PRETEND to be ecologically friendly. Like Al Gore, like Barack Obama, like Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson, like Hollywood's rich and famous.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
    drluggit likes this.
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm... this is surely one of those traps set to express what "rational" folks would say... Well, in for a pound as they say.

    So, when the AGW mouthpieces refer to climate change as an extinction level event, would you "rational" observer that you claim, ascribe the "extinction level event" as apocalyptic? Now, I know that this question provides several outs, you don't agree that the prediction is rational, you wouldn't claim such, etc.. But, let's be honest here. this prediction appeared as part of a study published in Science. So, since it did, are you suggesting that the nice folks who publish Science, are no longer rational? If they are not, what does that make their having published this? Dishonest? Propagandizing? Desperate for improved readership numbers and subscriptions?
     
  13. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don't believe CO2 and global climate change potential should be a public dialogue?

    Or in Gore's case and his 'hypocrites' it's productive to attack the messenger?
     
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet most of these same oil companies are spending big-time on alternative energy...so they understand and grasp the economic benefits but are not much interested in the other side of the equation to reduce greenhouse gases...
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All diatribe and no substance...
     
  16. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Big Greedy (Is there ANY OTHER KIND, really?) Oil Companies" in the parlance of the Left, manufacture diesel fuel, jet fuel, and gasoline for our use. If Leftists REALLY WANTED to "reduce greenhouse gases," as you pretend, as you insist, as you DEMAND, then Leftists should be exemplary in their conduct. The assuredly are not.
    Leftists eagerly:
    1. Fly and drive everywhere all the time, killing polar bears.
    2. Take "eco-tours," a one-word oxymoron.
    3. Take vacations all around the world, all the time, as advertised in rabidly "environmental" pretending magazines and tv programs, such as Sierra magazine, National Geographic, Smithsonian, LA Times, New York Times, Rick Steves Travel, and on and on.
    4. Stop going to movies, dinners, parties, parks, and entertainment of any sort, because traveling to any and all of these raises the ocean level 15 feet per year, and increases the earth's temperature10 degrees annually. And it's getting worse.

    Never mind that increasing median temperature degases the ocean of its carbon dioxide, increasing CO2 in our atmosphere, instead of the reverse. Never mind that temperature LEADS CO2 instead of the reverse. (Mudelsee, 2001; Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Siegenthaler et al., 2005)

    All-knowing Leftists want to control your life so they can feel better about themselves. And then jet off on their next overseas vacation, having just badmouthed those "Greedy Oil Companies" that made their trip possible.
     
  17. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you really believe in the war against Isis you would pick up a gun and join the fight. So....when do you ship out?
     
  18. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The subject is deunking what CO2 does and explaining what it does not do.
    So as a good and loyal Leftist, you try to derail the thread, attack me personally, and pretend that I can join the military and make a difference.

    Brilliant. No, really. You voted for Obama, who never served, then for Hillary, who treats the military with utter contempt and hatred and disdain, and before that, for Bill "loathing the military" Clinton.

    It so happens that I have my dress greens hanging in my closet, with an Expert Rifleman's badge over my left front pocket, and two
    overseas tour bars on my right sleeve.

    Now what do YOU have, Mister Bigmouth? Never mind. I already know. You have nothing.
    But you have been added to my Ignore List for your propensity to subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.
     
  19. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No the subject of your post was hypocrisy. You are saying that EVERYONE who takes a stand on that issue must PERSONALLY be engaged in the soultion of that issue. So all you right wingers clamoring for war need to get in the action or shut up. If you think that is wrong then your whole post is wrong.

    Ten years active duty and my greens hang in my closet too.
     
  20. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Vegas giantsWell-Known Member
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    19,404
    Likes Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    83
    New
    • You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content
     
  21. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I accept your defeat
     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wish your comments were not all diatribe so I could respond...
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  23. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
  24. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what passes for intelligent debate with some people. LOL
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  25. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd describe your misrepresentation of the situation as that, yes. That's just your problem.

    When you reference something, it's customary to link to it. Don't you want us to actually see it?

    I'm suggesting you're misrepresenting the study. We'll know when you link to it, eh? I'm guessing that the study that said many species will go extinct, but you're pretending the study said humans will go extinct.

    And are you going to point out anyone who has stated human beings are the apex of evolution, as you claimed the rational people believed? That's the point here, that, like a religious cultist, you hold certain beliefs purely on faith, and that you get very upset when people ask you for evidence.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page