On the face of it, the idea of the government being able to regulate how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into the atmosphere seems absurd. After all, it's a gas emitted by, among other things, human breathing.
That's the point Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, was making when he criticized the new policy that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 - much to the chagrin of MSNBC "The ED Show" anchor Ed Schultz.
"The Republican from Texas, Barton has already made it clear he's one of Congress' biggest deniers on man-made climate change," Schultz said during his "Psycho Talk" segment on his May 13 broadcast. "Now he's got a new one. The Congressman spoke with Newsmax - there's a news source - on Monday. Now, based on his interview, if you were a runner, I'd be a little bit of nervous about your favorite sport."
Schultz didn't like Barton's pointing out that by breathing alone the individual human emits between four-tenths and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.
"Barton says the Obama administration's efforts to regulate carbon dioxide could close down - get this, close down the New York and Boston marathons," Schultz said.
Schultz cited Barton's remarks published by Newsmax on May 11, where he was clearly making light of the absurdity of government regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
"If you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution," Barton said. "And you could regulate it. They key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not."
According to Schultz, human-emitted CO2 and so-called industrial CO2 are two separate things.
"This is a classic conservative argument against greenhouse gas regulation," Schultz said. "We exhale CO2. Now it's natural, therefore, if you want to regulate emissions, you'll have to regulate natural sources as well."
Schultz justified his distinction by maligning oil and coal and somehow labeling deforestation as an "industrial" source of CO2.
"Ok, let's start from the beginning," Schultz said. "There are natural sources of CO2, then there are industrial ones - you know like burning oil and coal and deforestation, yeah. Now the EPA says since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have climbed 35 percent. It is the industrial ones that are the problem here."
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s is the epoch global warming alarmists like to point to as the beginning of the end for the planet's climate. However, always left out of the equation, as Schultz did in his rant, is the boom in the planet's population - currently at levels five times what it was during the height of the Industrial Revolution.
Although there are serious doubts that CO2 has an impact on climate to anywhere near the extent the environmental left contends, that same environmental left downplays the impact of human-exhaled CO2 as a variable in the so-called global warming equation.
"The EPA wants to regulate the industrial ones, Congressman," Schultz said. "No more marathons? Cut me some slack, man. I'm trying to lose some weight. This is another case of Republican fear-mongering. Carbon dioxide fear-mongering - it's a new one."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Big Ed
May 14, 2009 - 13:34 ET by east tennessee johnCut the CO2 emissions by taking a big plastic bag putting it over your head and securing it with some rope.
...
May 14, 2009 - 13:38 ET by Eugenia"This is another case of Republican fear-mongering. Carbon
dioxide fear-mongering - it's a new one."
What???? The whole silly man-made, global-warming, the planet-is-going-to-die is the ultimate in ridiculous fear-mongering. I didn't watch it, but does anyone know if he said it with a straight face??
Where do you begin with
May 14, 2009 - 13:39 ET by mattmWhere do you begin with this idiot? Accusing conservatives of fear mongering when it's the Globalarmists who are shouting "the sky is falling!"???
Psycho Talk - that describes Ed to a T.
Ha! His whole show should
May 14, 2009 - 15:05 ET by MrSnugglesHa! His whole show should have its title changed to "Psycho Talk".
Professor Ed.
May 14, 2009 - 13:44 ET by mizflame98The last I checked, CO2 is CO2 no matter what the source might be. There is no good CO2 & bad CO2. BTW, the climate seems to be cooling Professor Ed. So much for CO2 being a greenhouse gas.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
Samuel Adams
CO2 just like Vitamin D.
May 14, 2009 - 14:00 ET by bubbasterBeneficial in small amounts, too much and it becomes toxic. It's interesting to watch a political debate about science. Each side throws out plenty of tidbits and talking points just to spin it in their favor.
When does CO2 become a pollutant? There's an interesting article by Roberta C. Barbalace at EnviromentalChemistry.com which offers a balanced view, in my opinion, to this subject.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
Oxygen can be toxic too, and
May 14, 2009 - 15:06 ET by MrSnugglesOxygen can be toxic too, and so can water.
There is such a thing as
May 14, 2009 - 15:19 ET by danboThere is such a thing as oxygen toxicity. And people have had seizures and even died as a result of oxygen toxicity.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
As a diver I can attest
May 14, 2009 - 16:35 ET by Dan The Man 2As a diver I can attest that almost all compounds and gaseous elemnet are toxic at one level or another. All except for the noble gasses which are for the most part inert. At depths below 120 feet you have to watch out for Nitrogen narcosis where it acts like an intoxicant at first and then deadly to your bloodstream. This is of course breathing common air. Oxygen is becoming a slight problem also.
When mixing breathing gasses one must watch out what to mix and at what percentages. These days there are sophisticated mixes and guages to help you. But, O poisoning is still a problem.
I never did get my tri-mix
May 14, 2009 - 17:23 ET by danboI never did get my tri-mix certification. Though, safer at depth, I understand even the helium in trimix has it's problems.
If the concentration of gases weren't a problem. We wouldn't be required to use get special certifications for nitrox and tri-mix.
As I recall, some of the older divers (that have been diving since Sea Hunt days) refer to nitrox as either devil gas or killer gas.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
The problem with mixtures
May 14, 2009 - 18:06 ET by Dan The Man 2The problem with mixtures of gasses are teh densities of teh gasses. Helium is inert but it compresses more than say Oxygen or Nitrogen. So when you are down at depth ur mixture changes and you must use more percentages of Helium than oxygen at deeper depths. The Helium also saturates ur cells quicker. Basically u come up slower and have more decompression stops with pure Oxygen breathing while doing it.
Now there are other mixes but some are prohibitivly expensive. Its been a while close to 35 years but I seem to remember all of the noble gasses are o.
The bottom line is exotic mixes are exotic and some complicated formulas are used in calculating the right mix.
I remember being on Helium mixture at 250 feet and the way up in the chamber one of the idiots wasnt using his Oxygen properly and almost spent 3 days in that stupid sphere. And tehy peeps were not good company for 3 days.
I'm a lowly amature. I
May 14, 2009 - 20:48 ET by danboI'm a lowly amature. I consider my highest certification cavern. (I know a number of cave divers here and in Florida.) When I retired I considered doing more tech training. Even talked to a number of tech instructors about it.
But? With all the money to upgrade my equipment, and buy redundancy... I can do a lot of fun diving in the Caribbean. Then there was the cost of all the extra training. For a hobby?
I was under the impression one of the problems with helium was the way it transfers heat. And you needed more exposure protection.
You might appreciate. My cavern instructor though it was his duty to teach me all the ways I could die underwater. From oxygen toxicity, deep water blackouts, bends, silt outs, running out of air, roll offs, etc.
I'm only certified to 40% O2, and the MAX limit for 40 is 90 ft. Recommended 80. It's my understanding the depth limit for pure O2 is only about 20-25 feet. Isn't the partial pressure limit for O2 about 1.4?
One of my instructors has the habit after a long deep cave dive of sitting at about 20 feet and swapping to 100% O2 to get rid of the N2 quicker. She apparently wasn't paying enough attention to buoyancy and drifted down a bit, when the facial twitches started.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
and alcohol and women.
May 14, 2009 - 15:28 ET by bubbasterMrSnuggles,
Total agreement.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
IMO, the day CO2 was
May 14, 2009 - 15:18 ET by motherbeltIMO, the day CO2 was designated a "pollutant" is the day the AGW movement officially jumped the shark.
It's really hard to imagine what they could come up with that is more ridiculous.
BTW...is there any chance that trees and plants might suffer if the amount of CO2 in the atmospheres falls to certain levels?
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Trees suffering?
May 14, 2009 - 15:32 ET by bubbastermotherbelt,
Plants & trees suffering? You're not becoming a treehugger, are you?
;-)
BUBBA
Minuscule Trace Gas
May 14, 2009 - 17:03 ET by dboI'm not to sure how this is considered a balanced view. She is clearly placing the blame of more CO2 in the atmosphere on anthropogenic causes. Dr. Roy Spencer shows that it is indisputable that extra CO2 is the result of sea surface temperature regardless of the carbon isotope.
Even the warmers usually
May 14, 2009 - 17:36 ET by danboEven the warmers usually accept that CO2 levels have changed. They claim the increase in CO2 caused tempertures to warm after the ice ages.
However they fail to explain where the CO2 came from to start the warming. Or to explain why it started cooling even though there was a high CO2 level.
Coorelations are not proof of causality. There are 4 options. A causes B. But there's also B causes A. And option 3, no both A and B are a reflection of an unnamed variable we will call C. And 4. No relationship. It's a fluke coorelation.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Indisputable?
May 14, 2009 - 18:44 ET by bubbasterdbo,
Wouldn't you want more scientists to support Dr. Spencer's indisputable claim? Where are they? His claim and graphs were shown to be flawed. His indisputable claim was disputed. I think there is a limit at which one's claim is indisputable when it comes to science. It's okay to question & be skeptical of the science and the data just as long it's not used in a confusing and misleading manner. Even Exxon has begun changing its own views on AGW from a Boston Globe article in Feb, 2007-
Even if Exxon is funding global warming skeptics for use in a campagain to sway public opinion similar to the Big Tobacco's playbook, Exxon is beginning to shift its views on the subject.
From what I can tell, this subject is far down on the scale of what truly matters to the population as a whole.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
Are We Still Talking Balance Here?
May 14, 2009 - 19:15 ET by dboWouldn't you want more scientists to support Dr. Spencer's indisputable
claim? Where are they? His claim and graphs were shown to be flawed.
His indisputable claim was disputed.
To dispute Spencer's May 11, 2009 article you link to a article written on May 21, 2008. Brilliant. Needless to say, the article you link to has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Try and keep up.
Isn't it ironic that people
May 14, 2009 - 19:40 ET by danboIsn't it ironic that people who are afraid to appear anywhere that there are competent skeptical scientist to debate are accusing them of cooking the books. Because they keep loosing debates.
The same people who cooked the books with their now broken hockey stick. the people who cooked the books with the y2k error. The people who cooked the books by using september numbers for october then claiming it was the warmest october ever. The people who have been cooking the books with all kinds of adjustments.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Dinosaurs, Dodo Birds and Hockey Stick Believers
May 14, 2009 - 19:54 ET by dboOnce every other month or so I still manage to stumble upon some deranged creature who tries to defend Mann's hockey stick. These wingnut's usually try and prey on peoples ignorance and spin the most amazing myths on that storied chapter in science fiction history. Fortunately, there's fewer of these people on the planet than there are 8 track tapes.
Re bad data
May 14, 2009 - 19:58 ET by slickwillie2001The independent survey of the 1,221 temperature monitoring stations in the USA have shown that 90% of the 70% surveyed so far are improperly sited, in such a way that will lead to higher temperatures being recorded than actuals.
US Temperature Records Biased on High Side: http://www.americanthinker.com
How Things Have Changed.....
May 14, 2009 - 14:09 ET by Bruce_in_KCWhen I was a kid we had a television show with a talking horse named Mr. Ed......Now we have a show with a talking horse's ass named Ed Schultz.
Mr. Ed
May 14, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Kingfish17Willlllbuuuuuuurrrrr!
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Mr Ed was
May 14, 2009 - 15:17 ET by danboMr Ed was brighter.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
So was
May 14, 2009 - 17:40 ET by general companyWilber
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I'm pretty Sure Schultz Doesn't Have A Tail Though
May 14, 2009 - 18:15 ET by dboFor those younguns out there that don't have a clue what we're talking about...
"I know nothing! Nothing!"
May 14, 2009 - 14:15 ET by CrashSchultz is a dunce. Barton was making a tongue & cheek comment regarding a liberal bullshit issue (which I too joked about in a post a few months back). CO2 is an indicator that life is thriving on the planet, not of pollution. And CO2 is actually the good carbon.
Now, if the left was really concerned about pollution, they'd push to regulate CO and SO2 in third world countries ... China and India too! That is, if they can bring them into the 21st century without killing their means to sustain their very lives.
A group charging money and
May 14, 2009 - 15:15 ET by danboA group charging money and bringing together could be called indistrial. And regulated.
Let's not forget those bubbles in beer. I understand that California has already attempted to regulate that evil corporate industrial polluter. Bakeries. States want to regulate the methane output of those evil daries.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Ice Age?
May 14, 2009 - 14:30 ET by slickwillie2001We should be much more concerned about the possibility of another ice age, or even a small period of cooling as experienced from 1300 to 1800.
The Coming Ice Age, by David Deming: http://www.americanthinker.com
A few degrees either way we can handle, but we can't handle the huge temperature changes that would come with an ice age.
A few degrees either way we
May 14, 2009 - 14:57 ET by Dan The Man 2A few degrees either way we can handle, but we can't handle the huge temperature changes that would come with an ice age
Most likely we will survive unless the earth goes -100 F including the equator. And even then we will find a way. We wont have 6 Billion most likely a handful of the richest or smartest or the ones with the most survival instinct or combination of all.
Technology is where we could live in self sustaining domes or underground growing our food and learning to conserve on a big scale. I do hope we underground dwellers dont evolve into morlocks though, especially since I wear dentures. I mean corn is hard enough.
Mankind's Epitaph
May 14, 2009 - 14:41 ET by IgnatzJFahrquar"Our air is clean, our water pure due to all this eco-sh!t. All was fine, with humankind and then the comet hit."
It still never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of some when it comes
to a 4.5 billion year old planet that got along fine before us and will
do quite well, thank you, after us.
The late, great George Carlin had an excellent monologue about this
subject.I believe it was something along the lines of litter ... "In 1
million years, who's going to give a f..."
"You should always tell the truth, because if you tell the truth you make it the other person's problem." Sean Connery
Wasn't it fitting?
May 14, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Paul AtreidesWasn't it fitting that Ed Schultz was sat next to Helen Thomas during the Obamaprompter's first press conference?
Two gasbags who are the equivalent to a whole herd of cow flatulence.
I love it when arrogant,
May 14, 2009 - 15:06 ET by fitzfongI love it when arrogant, illiterate douchebags like Ed Schultz pipe up about energy issues. Their patent ignorance is on display for all to see. They champion all these "green" technologies, "carbon neutral" lifestyles and energy efficient vehicles on one hand, then attempt to destroy the industries that actually produce the means of generating the clean energy (nuclear, coal, etc.) they claim must power the 21st Century economy on the other. They actually think you can power electric vehicles by generating energy via solar panels in Seattle and wind farms anywhere but in their own backyards. And they see no irony in flying private jets and running 20 times the energy as the average household to lecture average households that they're using too much energy. If ever there was a waste of energy, it's MSNBC.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Wind Power and our Ecology
May 14, 2009 - 15:32 ET by Kingfish17No sarcasm intended in any of the following:
I'm afraid of wind power and how it will effect our ecology and weather patterns. I have relayed these thoughts to my friends, but I guess it's either too wacky or I'm not explaining it well enough because they don't get what I'm talking about.
My biggest point is that wind power is not "free". If you set up a windmill the blades spin because air molecules hit the blades and force the blades to move. But the force gained from the air molecules hitting the blades has to dissipate. As wind moves past a windmill, and spins the blades, the power within the wind has to be lost, even if it's only to a small extent.
So one windmill in the middle of a field in Kansas isn't going to matter, just like one guy building a campfire isn't going to emit enough CO2 to matter, (just using their argument here, not agreeing with it).
But what if we build a ton of windmill farms all over the place? If we alter the power behind the wind by building these artificial barries to absorb the winds force and transform it into electricity, then doesn't that have a possibility of effecting our ecology and climate? Shouldn't we be concerned about this use of our wind and play it on the safe side?
Isn't this the exact same argument about the possible side effects of emitting too much CO2 into the atmosphere?
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Arrrrgh....
May 14, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI'm more worried about DiHydrogenOxide than CO2.
It kills more people every year than CO2 ever will.
It's found in every lake and stream. Every Sea and Ocean in amounts far greater than any other compound.
It has even been found in baby formula in dangerous quantities.
It's contained in every food you can buy in the grocery store.
If anything is due to be labelled as dangerous, it is DiHydrogenOxide.
http://gjresult.com
Dont worry Willis
May 14, 2009 - 16:44 ET by general companyThey are getting to it, right after the deal with the air we breath.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Schultz
May 14, 2009 - 16:36 ET by Jerry MackThe real reason that Msnbc hired Schultz is that they needed someone that Matthews could beat in the ratings. Mediabistro/tvnewser
Ed Schultz cannot possibly
May 14, 2009 - 17:01 ET by keeper23Ed Schultz cannot possibly believe the stuff that he says. I used to listen to his local radio show from Fargo, and he wasnt NEAR as wacko as he has become since his national show. He's actually conservative on many issues...the 2nd amendment is one of them. He's just trying to drum up an audience.
"Never sniff a gift fish"
Yes OxygenDiHydride is also
May 14, 2009 - 17:23 ET by eaglewingz08Yes OxygenDiHydride is also a major greenhouse gas pollutant. Once CO2 is established as a pollutant, there is no way to exempt that other noxious greenhouse gas from extraordinary government regulation.
I think we found the love child of Sgt. Schultz and Cpl LeBeau of Hogan's Heroes. He knows nothing but like the butt boy offspring of a French leftwing metrosexua and a german socialist, Ed Schultz parades his ignorance of all but his lunatic leftwing audience (of infinitesimal numbes) to see and mock.
Ed tries to mock that anyone would regulate a marathon, but no one really believed ten years ago that gay marriage would go anywhere, or that sugar drinks would become taxable, or that carbon would be taxed and destroyed as an energy source. Yet, libs are relentless in their destruction of western society, like locusts they destroy each area they inhabit before preying on their new location. They've pretty well destroyed Western Europe the coasts, and the upper midwest. Now its on to the South and Southwest.
Liberals don't like science
May 14, 2009 - 17:53 ET by sevenliberals don't like truth. liberals hate facts.
I followed a CO2 truck today. It had a lot of bottles of compressed CO2 for soft drink machines.
We like soda pop. Dry Ice is CO2. We have a lot of uses and the EPA is a bunch of crooks. If they want to regulate it fairly and for real, they will surprise us with what they fine and punish. The day they want to really deal with CO2, they will reverse ethanol for cars. It will be the first to go.
By the way, we can order CO2 generators for greenhouses. They really help speed up plannt growth. Even adding carbonated water to house plants results in use of less watering. As long as humans want to eat, we will for example understand an acre of corn produces a ton of oxygen yearly and absorbs a lot of CO2 to do it.
It sounds like CO2 has been
May 14, 2009 - 17:58 ET by balboaIt sounds like CO2 has been lumped in with pollutants because an excess of CO2 can lead to problems (or am I wrong there).
No
May 14, 2009 - 18:47 ET by TIRMCO2 has been labeled a polutant because there is a belief that it causes global warming, and as such the consequences of rising temperatures would cause untold problems for humans and other animals.
This is a load of crap, of course. CO2 levels have been far higher in the geological history of the Earth with an abundance of plant and animal life during those times.
The Earth does appear to be getting warmer, and has been getting warmer as we move out of our previous ice age. Is man causing the Earth to get warmer? Perhaps, but our actions are far outweighed by natural sources. The sun and Water Vapour are by far, the largest contributors to global warmth. This idiot left are simply that.
I just wanted to point out
May 14, 2009 - 19:24 ET by danboI just wanted to point out that there's also a fairly long history of the testing the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Warmers have just tossed out any test that showed high CO2 levels in the 19th century as errors. Much as they do with anything inconvenient.
Then in ice core samples they claimed that the CO2 levels were encased in ice that was older than the air entrapped
CO2 is important in human life. For one thing its important for triggering the breathing response. Low levels of CO2 in the blood seem to be the cause of shallow water blackouts that often result in drowning.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
No such thing as excess of CO2
May 15, 2009 - 16:51 ET by deerjerkydaveCO2 makes up 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere. Mankind's contribution to that small figure is tiny. It is physically impossible for such a tiny gas to make such a big difference to earth's climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
The alternative theory is much more plausible. The sun, which emits a LOT of heat, goes through warming periods and cooling periods. The warm periods result in a warmer earth. A warmer earth causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans into the atmosphere. The cooler periods result in a cooler earth.
Did you know that the earth is currently experiencing a cooling trend? And did you know that sun spot activity is currently at a low point?
Shows Ed is a liberal
May 14, 2009 - 19:42 ET by TheHistorianAs a liberal, Ed tries mental gymnastics to show how wonderful his 85 IQ is. Unfortunately, Ed can't tell you why CO2 from humans is different. The fact is that plants don't care about the source of CO2. And Ed, explain the high temps of the middle ages where there were only 100 million people on the earth and virtually no man-made sources. Ed, until you libs start 'splaining, keep your CO2 to yourself. Because conservatives are idiots only shows YOUR idiocy.
Big Bad Ed is the only
May 14, 2009 - 19:52 ET by bigtimerBig Bad Ed is the only loud-mouth- hot-aired guy filled with his daily Psycho-babbling.
He is proof that a so-called human such as him needs to be gone, along with the rest of msnbc....do us all a favor and really contribute to the betterment of the environment....take Matthews, Maddow, Olbie, Shuster, O'Donnell, and Brewer with ya and be gone.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
I Love CO2
May 14, 2009 - 19:59 ET by deerjerkydaveI love CO2! I drink it all of the time! It makes my soda fizzy.
Uh oh, I guess Coca Cola is "manufactured" CO2 which makes it a pollutant. Time to regulate the soft drink industry!
djd... Regulate... and
May 14, 2009 - 20:06 ET by bigtimerdjd...
Regulate... and don't forget tax them, because they are next in the target from congress-critters to fund a lot of their leftist programs on down the road...
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
tired of liberal
May 14, 2009 - 20:46 ET by stunnedtired of liberal lies
Someone buy Schultz a sense of humor. Notice how liberals can not laugh at a joke unless the butt of it is a conservative and the punch line wishes him dead.
Huh?
May 14, 2009 - 21:51 ET by LumenNation"On the face of it, the idea of the government being able to regulate how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into the atmosphere seems absurd. After all, it's a gas emitted by, among other things, human breathing."
Yeah, well... people make urine too. And I'm happy to have the government regulate how much of it gets into my drinking water.
What a ridiculous straw man argument.
The horse of course, Mr. Ed
May 14, 2009 - 22:21 ET by Buck_1Someone should cut your CO/2 off Mr.horse
?
May 14, 2009 - 22:29 ET by LumenNationI'm sorry but that makes no sense. Did I miss something?
Nasty little CO2 molecule.
May 14, 2009 - 23:58 ET by JWFNow the EPA says since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have climbed 35 percent.
Whyfor hasn't the temperature gone up 35% then? Maybe there is not that much to worry about from the nasty little co2 molecule huh?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
It's not a one-to-one
May 15, 2009 - 06:42 ET by LumenNationIt's not a one-to-one relationship
All right mr. smarty.
May 15, 2009 - 06:52 ET by JWFIf it is not one to one. then what exactly is the relationship?
And do pray tell what the relationship is for the sun, water vapor, & other greenhouse gases such as methane.
I want to know. Ed has informed us that CO2 has gone up 35%. It must be close to one for one right? Otherwise, why mention it at all?
You felt the need to correct me. Let me have it with all cannons blazing.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I suspect the reason he
May 15, 2009 - 10:26 ET by LumenNationI suspect the reason he mentions it is because it's one of the primary factors affecting climate, and one we can control. But as you write, the sun, water vapor, & other greenhouse gases such as methane all play a role. That's why I can't quantify the relationship of just CO2... you would have to isolate it from the other factors.
§ Lumen??? I Just FARTED. Deal With IT!!!!
May 15, 2009 - 10:32 ET by TheSterYeah....
Methane.
3x CO2...
Hello.....I'm Ster.
BURP....
.....How Much was THAT???!!!!!
I'll Wait for the Math...
Ster.
The brand new sourceless troll fails to back up what he says
May 15, 2009 - 10:43 ET by JWFThe troll says It's not a one-to-one relationship
I asked If it is not one to one. then what exactly is the relationship?
And do pray tell what the relationship is for the sun, water vapor, & other greenhouse gases such as methane.
He feels the need to correct me but never provides anything like evidence, facts or sources.
He wants to restrict CO2, he wants to ration CO2. But he refuses to, you know, quantify it.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I did answer you, and with
May 15, 2009 - 10:57 ET by LumenNationI did answer you, and with the most accurate answer that can be provided. If you had more than a grade school understanding of science and statistical analysis you would understand. See, this is why ignorant people should just leave science to the scientists. Your question about "What is the relationship" is right up there with "If men descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" and "How can we be having global warming when I just shoveled a foot of snow off my drive". Ignorance.
In other words, you cannot
May 15, 2009 - 11:03 ET by fitzfongIn other words, you cannot produce factual evidence to back up your position, so you're reduced to straw man "arguments" and lame personal attacks. That's effective.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
"That's why I can't quantify
May 15, 2009 - 11:03 ET by Agnostic"That's why I can't quantify the relationship of just CO2... you would have to isolate it from the other factors."
"with the most accurate answer that can be provided"
Why should the economy be stripped of its driving force, energy, and be regulated to stagnation for the benefit of science that is "it might be happening, depending upon...". I know some are so sure that they are willing to sacrifice the nation to their cause but many want a heck of a lot more proof; especially those of us who remember the coming of the Ice Age in the 70s. Everyone in the media and a specific group of scientist were so sure then too.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
The old "ice age
May 15, 2009 - 11:57 ET by LumenNationThe old "ice age predictions" argument is a red herring. The science of climate study has advanced immensely since the seventies. We only recently had weather satellites in the sky back then.
To refer to that is like referring to mideival (sp?) scientists ideas on the age of the earth to discount todays knowledge of billions of years. Like "Hey, scientists then thought the earth was 6000 years old, so why shouldn't I believe creationists today?" It just doesn't wash.
Bah, forgot to click the
May 15, 2009 - 16:32 ET by CortillaenBah, forgot to click the post button. Better late than never, though: Translation: "We know better now! This time, this time we're right! We're positive!" The "It'll work when we do it" non-argument is already out the window, so it's time to fall back on the "It'll work when we do it this time" non-argumnt. Funny stuff.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
If those weather satelites
May 15, 2009 - 17:26 ET by danboIf those weather satelites were that great. Why doesn't Hansen use them to derive his tempertures? I think I know.
What with all that extra evil CO2 it's risen maybe 0.1 or 0.2 in 30 years. Considering all the positice ENSO's and the PDO shifting to the warm phase about 1980. That's nothing.
But the sky is falling.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
This is the same troll that is happy with regulating CO2
May 15, 2009 - 11:30 ET by JWFYeah, well... people make urine too. And I'm happy to have the government regulate how much of it gets into my drinking water.
What a ridiculous straw man argument.
...
That's why I can't quantify the relationship of just CO2... you would have to isolate it from the other factors.
He can't quantify it or provide us with proof of what he says yet he wants to regulate CO2.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
show me where i said that,
May 15, 2009 - 11:58 ET by LumenNationshow me where i said that, liar.
LumenNaton, I have the LINKS and it's all on this thread
May 15, 2009 - 12:37 ET by upcountrywaterHuh?
I suspect the reason he
So this PROOF makes you what?
MORE TO YOUR POINT
Here is a co2 VS temp. chart.
Get back to me on the RATIO will ya.
Here is some SCIENCE The Sun drives the weather.
Reagan VS 0bama
Whomever devised that chart
May 15, 2009 - 13:10 ET by LumenNationWhomever devised that chart proves that old saying about "lies, damned lies and statistics". By choosing a starting point in a year that was exceptionally warm, and an end point in a year that was exceptionally cool, he/she has created the false impression that the world is cooling. Look at the center 4/5ths of the chart. Temps trending steadily up. And if you look at temps beginning with the start of the industrial revolution -- about the time we started pouring so much CO2 into our atmosphere -- the trend is alarming.
And your statement that "the sun drives weather" is just laughingly simplistic. NO one factor drives weather.
And Lumen
May 15, 2009 - 13:15 ET by RESTLESS 1If you look millions of years further back than that, you will see eras of warming far greater than the last warming period ending in 1998.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Absolutely true. Still,
May 15, 2009 - 13:20 ET by LumenNationAbsolutely true. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that the world is warming up today, and that human emmissions of CO2 one of the likely causes.
LN, No LINKs, it's getting COOLER
May 15, 2009 - 13:36 ET by upcountrywaterIce Age coming
"A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the
last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become
reality," Abdusamatov said.
He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly,
rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the
past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial
emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.
Reagan VS 0bama
That just proves how stupid
May 15, 2009 - 13:42 ET by LumenNationThat just proves how stupid it is to try to make predictions about specific dates or places. We can accurately forecast global trends, but any one year may be a complete abberation.
not if there is
May 15, 2009 - 13:49 ET by botga direct relation between CO2 levels and temperature
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
And don't forget. Even if
May 15, 2009 - 17:16 ET by danboAnd don't forget. Even if there was a coorelation between CO2 and tempertures. Coorelations do not imply causality. Even Wiki got that one right.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
true Danbo
May 15, 2009 - 17:24 ET by botgbut a direct coorelation does imply causality, however it is the leading factor that does the causing and not the lagging factor
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
There are 4 possible causes
May 15, 2009 - 17:49 ET by danboThere are 4 possible causes for a coorelation. 1 is A causes B. Which warmers try to imply. But there's also 2, B causes A. This has hnot been ruled out and there's much evidence to support it. Also not ruled out with evidence to support it is 3, there's only an indirect relationship between A and B. That they're both a reflection of or caused by an un named or untested third variable or group of variables we'll call C. And lastly any coorelation can be just a statistical fluke.
Hypothesis. Membership in the democratic party drives people to drink. Research design. Random sample 50 communities in the US. Go to the office of voter registration. Get the number of democrats. Then pick up the phone book and count the number of bars. Crunch your numbers. You'll find a high direct coorelation. But both are caused by variable C. Population size of the community.
Though my own bias is it's a bit true. LOL
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Since I'm feeling generous...
May 15, 2009 - 13:57 ET by CortillaenI'll help our troll out with some actual numbers instead of his "We can't be certain of anything except that CO2 is evil" crap. To wit, 0.117%. That's the total amount of whatever "greenhouse effects" actually exist that is a result of human-produced CO2. Factoring in methane, nitrous oxide, and various minor gasses like CFCs, the total of human contributions come to... 0.28%. The vaaaaast majority (100 - 0.28 = 99.72%, just in case our factually-impaired friend is equally impaired in mathematics and reading comprehension), of any "greenhouse effects" come from natural sources. Oh, and the giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky? That probably has something to do with it, too. A rational line of thought would consider that the source of energy on this planet is likely a major factor when said energy fluctuates, no?
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Calling all LNs. Calling LNs.
May 15, 2009 - 16:27 ET by CortillaenLook, LN! Real numbers! I'm still waiting for you to reply with some irrelevant comment while totally ignoring the fact that I have produced the numbers you said don't exist (heading off your protest with a link) while utterly failing to respond to how the numbers fly in the face of your unsupported claims. *starts humming the Jeopardy theme*
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
So, in essence
May 15, 2009 - 13:45 ET by RESTLESS 1What you are saying is that no matter what evidence you are presented with, no matter how faulty the conclusions of hanson et al. no matter how junk the science, and no matter what history tells us, your mind is made up and that's that. Okay. I won't waste any more time on you then. Besides, you haven't brought anything but the same old alarmist talking points that have been debunked here over and over again.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
What you are saying is that
May 15, 2009 - 13:49 ET by LumenNationWhat you are saying is that no matter what evidence you are presented
with, no matter how accurate the conclusions of hanson et al. no matter
how correct the science, and no matter what the overwhelming scientific consensus tells us, your mind is
made up and that's that. Okay. I won't waste any more time on you then.
awesome post!!
May 15, 2009 - 13:51 ET by botgfor an 8 year old
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
LN, What is your point, IS IT GETTING HOTTER ON EARTH???
May 15, 2009 - 13:32 ET by upcountrywaterThat you have NO CLUE as to how to read a graph?
Is is getting HOTTER?
Is it getting COLDER?
Goes CO2 have ANYTHING to do with it?
540 MILLION YEARS AGO CO2 was at 7,000 ppm. Today it's 380 ppm
Man caused RIGHT!
Where oh where are your links?????
Reagan VS 0bama
It is getting hotter.
May 15, 2009 - 13:47 ET by LumenNationIt is getting hotter. Firmly established.
What the climate was like billions of years ago is a red herring. When we worry about global climate change, all that really matters is how it's going to change from what man is adapted to, our crops, our livestock. That means the last few thousand years, and specifically the last hundred or so, since so many people live in vulnerable places, somany crops -- like the US wheat crop -- are dependent on the climate staying pretty much the same. A few degrees temp change didn't mattter a billion years ago. It matters a lot today.
You're a one-trick pony
May 15, 2009 - 13:59 ET by CortillaenSeriously, that's just said. "It is getting hotter. Firmly established." That's it? No evidence? No support? Just "I say so"?
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
LN, NOPE its cooler, WHERE IS SOME OF YOUR LINKS?????
May 15, 2009 - 14:09 ET by upcountrywaterIceGlobal cooling gains momentum among scientists
Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change, Sorokhtin
said. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy
produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop
in the ocean.”
Reagan VS 0bama
lol lumen
May 15, 2009 - 13:46 ET by botgis it hotter during the day or the night?
all other factors merely intensify or de-intesify the effect of the sun.
for someone who has lumen in his SN you're not very bright
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
We're talking about
May 15, 2009 - 13:52 ET by LumenNationWe're talking about climate. You're talking about weather.
And you say I'm not very bright?
See, this is why I say you should leave science to actual scientists. Even the simplest concepts are often beyond the ability for the average undereducated American to comprehend.
lol
May 15, 2009 - 13:56 ET by botgevidence that the sun has a direct relationship to temperture on the earth seems too difficult a concept for you. Perhaps you should leave thinking to people able to do so.
but i agree leave science to scientists and get the political hacks at the IPPC out of it
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I am a scientist. Would
May 15, 2009 - 14:42 ET by NL207I am a scientist. Would you like to discuss this with me?
Depends on what kind of
May 15, 2009 - 14:59 ET by LumenNationDepends on what kind of scientist you are.
If you're a chemist, say, then you probably know no more about climate that an auto mechanic.
But a failed Divinity
May 15, 2009 - 15:08 ET by fitzfongBut a failed Divinity School student knows more than any scientist.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Oh wow... let's not even get
May 15, 2009 - 15:55 ET by LumenNationOh wow... let's not even get into the dream world of religion.
"Environmentalism" is a
May 15, 2009 - 15:57 ET by fitzfong"Environmentalism" is a religion.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
No, it's a world view
May 15, 2009 - 16:01 ET by LumenNationNo, it's a world view. I'm an environmentalist, and i worship no god
But you do use ridiculous
May 15, 2009 - 16:04 ET by CortillaenBut you do use ridiculous and irrelevant tangents to avoid answering the actual point.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
How so? Please explain.
May 15, 2009 - 16:05 ET by LumenNationHow so? Please explain.
Okay, so maybe you're more
May 15, 2009 - 16:11 ET by CortillaenOkay, so maybe you're more dense than clever. Fitzong mentioned that the most visible promoter of AGW has less in the way of scientific credentials than literally anyone with a degree in any hard science, and you latch on to part of a school's name, "Divine", to veer completely off topic in a comment about religion.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Ahhh.. well yes, you're
May 15, 2009 - 16:37 ET by LumenNationAhhh.. well yes, you're right, I did NOT make that connection.
All the same, I see Gore as a reporter, not a scientist. I don't expect a news anchor to understand everything about a topic, but I expect him to report accurately about what the experts know about that subject .
Contrary to your
May 15, 2009 - 16:48 ET by fitzfongContrary to your assertion, Gore doesn't "report accurately on what the experts know about that subject". When offered an opinion at odds with his, he ducks all challenges and claims, fraudulently, that the "debate is over" and the science is "settled". That makes him a charlatan and a coward, not a reporter.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Typical. Attack real
May 15, 2009 - 17:05 ET by CortillaenTypical. Attack real scientists for not being the "right kind", but the non-scientist Gore can say whatever he wants while believers claim he's just a "reporter". This would be called "hypocrisy". Weren't you the one who claimed "you should leave science to actual scientists. Even the simplest
concepts are often beyond the ability for the average undereducated
American to comprehend"? Why does that not apply to Gore? He's out there fighting for policy changes over something he can't even begin to understand, according to you.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Cort
May 15, 2009 - 17:13 ET by botgHe's out there fighting for policy changes over something he can't even begin to understand, according to you.
well according to Gores transcripts, ol Al really has no scientific acumen. I'd rate that as a much better measure than lumen's rather questionable cognitive abilities
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Either way it's a belief as
May 15, 2009 - 16:05 ET by fitzfongEither way it's a belief as a substitute for fact.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Partially true, in the
May 15, 2009 - 16:09 ET by LumenNationPartially true, in the sense that there are very few real facts in science. Everything is open to correction. But it's a belief based upon thousands and thousands of pages of research, as opposed to a belief based upon the spewings of right wing pundits, as your belief is.
You have Sean Hannity and Rush to back you up. I have James Hansen and a thousand other scientists and their research to back me up.
Experiments are the basis of science, right?
May 15, 2009 - 16:18 ET by CortillaenKindly name and link, oh, say, 5 scientific experiments substantiating AGW. Even one would be great.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Oh yes, the strawman
May 15, 2009 - 16:24 ET by fitzfongOh yes, the strawman "scientist" vs. the right wing pundit device. That's original. You haven't the first clue what my beliefs are, much less what they are based on. Presuming that you do know just exposes your ignorance.
Here's a tip, you'd do your "argument" a big favor by avoiding using the debunked chicken little socialist James Hansen and a herd of unnamed junk scientists on the U.N. globalist payroll as your "support". No need to thank me, your continuing education would be thanks enough.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
" it's a world
May 15, 2009 - 17:05 ET by danbo" it's a world view."
Thank you for being honest. It's a view. Not fact.
Science deals in observations and hypothesis testing. There are 2 potential errors. 1 is to reject a true hypothesis , the 2nd is to accept a false hypothesis.
A lot of bright people and well trained scientist in the climate field believe AGW is the acceptance of a false hypothesis.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
HAY Lumen, HELLO Al Gore is a failed Divinity School student .
May 15, 2009 - 16:14 ET by upcountrywaterReagan VS 0bama
Yeah, yeah... Fitz made the
May 15, 2009 - 20:25 ET by LumenNationYeah, yeah... Fitz made the connection for me above. I didn't realize that was what he/she was getting at.
Shall I dog you throughout
May 15, 2009 - 21:07 ET by CortillaenShall I dog you throughout the thread until you go admit the numbers you claim don't exist both exist and fly in the face of your unsupported claims? Until you do so, I dub thee The Factless Coward. Maybe publicly shaming you will get you to do what appeals to honesty didn't.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
What kind is the "right
May 15, 2009 - 15:29 ET by NL207What kind is the "right kind"?
Does the scientific method somehow vary from discipline to discipline?
No, but basic knowledge of
May 15, 2009 - 15:56 ET by LumenNationNo, but basic knowledge of the field does.
Would you ask a heart surgeon for his opinion on your brain tumor?
Then what kind of scientist
May 15, 2009 - 16:25 ET by NL207Then what kind of scientist do YOU think is the 'right kind'?
Only when a true believer
May 15, 2009 - 16:01 ET by CortillaenOnly when a true believer wants to exclude someone who hasn't been indoctrinated by the system. I wonder where my old post on that topic is... The only one I can find is from my early days here, explaining why "climatology" is more akin to investment analysis than to science, but I know I had one somewhere explaining the whole "right kind" thing. Regardless, it's a circular system intended to exclude those who don't believe...
EDIT: Having a unique name on the web makes search engines handy: Found it. The part about the system is about halfway down, in response to Giles' claim that 31,000 scientists' opinions are worthless if they aren't "climatologists".
Also, LN, are you planning to respond to my post with the numbers you seem incapable of producing? Just curious...
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Yeah, that's what people who
May 15, 2009 - 16:03 ET by LumenNationYeah, that's what people who don't understand science always have said about scientists. Scientists used to be accused of witch craft too.
Is avoiding actual answers
May 15, 2009 - 16:18 ET by CortillaenIs avoiding actual answers your instintual response to any sort of point? At least have some consistency. First you claim that old trends and evidence of alarmism from the just a few decades ago should be disregarded because they're from the past, but now "people said something like that centuries ago" is supposed to be a defense against my point? This is just sad. I'm starting to wonder why I bother responding to someone who seems intent using mental yoga to avoid actually addressing anything.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Kind of
May 15, 2009 - 16:58 ET by danboKind of like?
Here.
and
Here.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Those are great. I may
May 15, 2009 - 17:12 ET by CortillaenThose are great. I may have to abscond with them, if only for personal and family enjoyment. Proper attribution may be expected if I ever use them online. ;)
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
I found them from a poster
May 15, 2009 - 17:37 ET by danboI found them from a poster over at Watt's blog. Have fun with them.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
If this is true, why are you commenting on it?
May 15, 2009 - 14:57 ET by general companyWe're talking about climate. You're talking about weather.
And you say I'm not very bright?
See, this is why I say you should leave science to actual scientists.
Even the simplest concepts are often beyond the ability for the average
undereducated American to comprehend.
You dont think much of yourself, do you?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Don't worry I know my limits
May 15, 2009 - 16:04 ET by LumenNationDon't worry I know my limits
is that why
May 15, 2009 - 16:47 ET by botgyou've been banned before?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
No problem LN
May 15, 2009 - 19:09 ET by general companyDon't worry I know my limits
So do we
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Sorry it hasn't been
May 15, 2009 - 16:45 ET by danboSorry it hasn't been "steadly up". The chart you brushed aside is part of the evidence. Fact is it warmed in the early part of the 20th century, when there was a depression and little growth in fossil fuel usage. Then after WWII when the world was rebuilding and we were in love with the automobile, tempertures went south. Then there was a shift in the PDO and tempertures increased. And for the last 10 years in spite of all the CO2 and whinning of warmers. Tempertures have gone from stagnant to south.
Talk about giving false impressions. Like comparing tempertures to the little ice age or the cool period from 1950-80 while ignoring the 20's-40's. Or leaving out the recent period 80-09 from the baseline.
AGW is one big false impression.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Still waiting, LIAR
May 15, 2009 - 16:33 ET by LumenNationStill waiting, LIAR
Funny, that's my line to
May 15, 2009 - 17:06 ET by CortillaenFunny, that's my line to you.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
CO2 Emissions from Human breathing.
May 15, 2009 - 03:31 ET by TonyfromOzAs an exercise, I actually worked this out.
The population on the planet is close on 6.8 Billion people.
The emission of CO2 just from their breathing alone amounts to 2.236 Billion tons per year.
Go to this link and see the calculation.
http://papundits.wor...
There is nothing to
May 15, 2009 - 07:21 ET by troglodytThere is nothing to downplay here. Human carbon dioxide emissions do not count, as they are part of the usual carbon cycle, meaning that the CO2 we breathe out was taken out of the atmosphere by the plants we eat (, or by the plants the animals we eat, eat).
This argument is in short bogus and nonsense. The real problem if there is one, is that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is constantly increasing, because most of energy produced by mankind is based on fossil fuels, which bind carbon which is not in the atmosphere right now.
Re nothing
May 15, 2009 - 10:26 ET by slickwillie2001But we can't acknowledge that the CO2 we breathe is a part of the cycle, and then deny that CO2 from fuels we burn is not part of the cycle. The cycle doesn't know where its components come from. The cycle from the burning of fuels is just a little longer than from us breathing. The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more will end up dissolved in the oceans, or dissolved in rain, or sucked in by stimulated growth in plants, and put back into the ground.
Still much more concerned about the possibility of an ice age.