Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real. Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7513 Jan 3, 2013
'radioactivity' is the correct spelling.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7514 Jan 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I was reacting to her, "the sun is a nuclear reaction."
Essentially it's true.

A big ball of hydrogen and when it's helium it's game over.

However, the radiation that reaches the Earth from the sun is warmth and light, pleasant to sit in if you have a cold beer at hand.

The radiation that reaches you from a leaking fission reactor is invisible, but deadly.

Ask anybody within range of Chernobyl windfall.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7515 Jan 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
So you need a scientific study to tell you that every time you mow your yard or rake leaves, the plant material contains carbon that has been sequestered from carbon dioxide?
No, we need experimental tests before we change our economy toward the goal of mitigating climate change. If I don't rake the leaves on my yard, it makes no difference to global climate.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
You need a scientific study to reveal that a Ford Fusion emits less carbon dioxide than a Cadillac Brougham?
No, I need a to see experimental data to see if restricting man made CO2 emissions helps or harms climate change. Without experimental tests, we're talking about superstition, not science.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Have you sprayed your lawn with diquat and removed a spark plug from your car to better display your contempt of "the politician"?
No, I'm waiting for the experimental data. Please post the most compelling experiment you've found showing climate change mitigation is possible, that it won't cause more harm than good.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7516 Jan 4, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't I tell you I love to type,'pinheadlitesout'? Its so appropriate that 'pinheadlitesout' devised my own name,'pinheadlitesout'or phlo.
Yes, I love to type,'pinheadlitesout'.
We got it the first time.“pinheadlitesout" phlo it’s all the same.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7517 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Dumb liar.
Where does it say like you published the "sun is a nuclear reaction?"
It DOES NOT. You lie always about science and mathematics because you know none.
First sentence of the third paragraph says and I quote, "Indeed, it is true that light which is generated by nuclear fusion reactions in the center of the Sun". So far it sounds like you have problems with reading and really are the one who lacks knowledge of science and math. Since this is covered in most elementry school science text books.

As for your claim I am lying, I just chalk that up to your denial of any fact that does not agree with your faith. There are similar examples in the past when people with your mindset once believed that the earth had to be the center of the univers and that the earth was flat. They claimed that anyone they disagreed with must not know science and had to be lying as well.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7518 Jan 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Essentially it's true.
A big ball of hydrogen and when it's helium it's game over.
However, the radiation that reaches the Earth from the sun is warmth and light, pleasant to sit in if you have a cold beer at hand.
The radiation that reaches you from a leaking fission reactor is invisible, but deadly.
Ask anybody within range of Chernobyl windfall.
And what color is that warmth. Actually it is red as in the infra red radation from the sun. And it is possible to die from a sunburn but not likely, but the odds are better than from radation from a nuclear reactor for the average person. Most of those who die from a sunburn wasn't from the burn itself but related effects such as sunstroke, heat exhaustion, dehydration, and or infection.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Burns-1441/Death-s...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7519 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
First sentence of the third paragraph says and I quote, "Indeed, it is true that light which is generated by nuclear fusion reactions in the center of the Sun". So far it sounds like you have problems with reading and really are the one who lacks knowledge of science and math. Since this is covered in most elementry school science text books.
As for your claim I am lying, I just chalk that up to your denial of any fact that does not agree with your faith. There are similar examples in the past when people with your mindset once believed that the earth had to be the center of the univers and that the earth was flat. They claimed that anyone they disagreed with must not know science and had to be lying as well.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php...
You are totally out of any science realm. You are a disgrace in your dealing with other posters.

Nail in my coffin, huh? Nasty tina.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7520 Jan 4, 2013
tina is still arguing the fact that she posted yesterday, "the sun is a nuclear reaction." It is not.

She could not even read her own link correctly. Oh well, that's not new.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7522 Jan 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, we need experimental tests before we change our economy toward the goal of mitigating climate change. If I don't rake the leaves on my yard, it makes no difference to global climate.
How do you know it doesn't? Have you seen a study that indicates photosynthesis does not bind carbon from carbon dioxide? Since you bring it up, have you seen any CREDIBLE study that indicates "trickle down" economics or superfluous oil industry tax breaks are actually good for the economy?
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I need a to see experimental data to see if restricting man made CO2 emissions helps or harms climate change. Without experimental tests, we're talking about superstition, not science.
If you choose to consider 150 years of deforestation and industrial emissions as an experiment, the data (global temperatures/atmospheric components) that has been accumulating for the last couple decades correlates reasonably well.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm waiting for the experimental data. Please post the most compelling experiment you've found showing climate change mitigation is possible, that it won't cause more harm than good.
You actually propose that reducing man-made emissions could harm the environment? Okie-dokie. If you choose to be superstitious, I might frown on it, but I won't stand in your way.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7523 Jan 5, 2013
Suzuki: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war."

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7524 Jan 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
...If you choose to consider 150 years of deforestation and industrial emissions as an experiment, the data (global temperatures/atmospheric components) that has been accumulating for the last couple decades correlates reasonably well.
If you choose to consider 150 years of deforestation and industrial emissions as an experiment then you don't know what an experiment is. An experiment is a test under controlled circumstances.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
You actually propose that reducing man-made emissions could harm the environment? Okie-dokie. If you choose to be superstitious, I might frown on it, but I won't stand in your way.
I don't know if restricting man made greenhouse gas emissions would help or hurt global climate since there's no experimental test that shows man can change global climate.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7525 Jan 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you choose to consider 150 years of deforestation and industrial emissions as an experiment then you don't know what an experiment is. An experiment is a test under controlled circumstances.
.
<quoted text>I don't know if restricting man made greenhouse gas emissions would help or hurt global climate since there's no experimental test that shows man can change global climate.
Your 38,108 posts said probably the same things.[I'm glad I did not read them all.]

It's about time that you design the experiment that you've been posting about.

What is it?

We don't want your song and dance about science or its methods.

All is required from you:

What is the experiment you want?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7526 Jan 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Your 38,108 posts said probably the same things.[I'm glad I did not read them all.]
It's about time that you design the experiment that you've been posting about.
What is it?
We don't want your song and dance about science or its methods.
All is required from you:
What is the experiment you want?
Brian's already told us that. He'd explode a nuclear bomb in a coal mine.

Which of course would only result in some fused rock.

What he really needs is a planet duplicator ray and a time machine, then he could do his experiment.

Brian's aim, as he has explicitly stated, is to further the right wing cause by endlessly repeating a number of scientifically silly ideas that he hopes will influence the public debate on AGW.

He doesn't care how often those ideas are shown to be based on foolishness and understanding- if they influence people, they have worked.

It's an experiment in demagoguery.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7527 Jan 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Your 38,108 posts said probably the same things.[I'm glad I did not read them all.] It's about time that you design the experiment that you've been posting about. What is it? We don't want your song and dance about science or its methods. All is required from you: What is the experiment you want?
It's not up to me to provide an experiment; I'm not a scientist. Besides; I'm not claiming we should restrict greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change, you hold that theory. I'm just asking what experimental evidence do you have that we can mitigate climate change.

What have you got? Show me the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7528 Jan 6, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Brian's already told us that. He'd explode a nuclear bomb in a coal mine. Which of course would only result in some fused rock.
I've floated ideas for randomly emitting and sequestering large amounts of greenhouse gas at random intervals to see if a global climate temperature signal can be found caused by those independent variables.

.
Fair Game wrote:
What he really needs is a planet duplicator ray and a time machine, then he could do his experiment.
Science has a method of coping with single subject experimental designs. If you contract a rare disease, a doctor doesn't need a duplicator or a cloning device, single subject experiments are well documented.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

.
Fair Game wrote:
Brian's aim, as he has explicitly stated, is to further the right wing cause by endlessly repeating a number of scientifically silly ideas that he hopes will influence the public debate on AGW.
Really only one idea; the complete lack of experimental evidence shows climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience. Politics has nothing to do with it; other than the fact some parties require low information voters more than others.

.
Fair Game wrote:
He doesn't care how often those ideas are shown to be based on foolishness and understanding- if they influence people, they have worked. It's an experiment in demagoguery.
It's called the Scientific Method:

[P]rinciples and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sci...
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#7529 Jan 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I was reacting to her, "the sun is a nuclear reaction."
The sun is a star WITH fusion reactions.
Fusion products are the source for our sunlight and radiative warming.
Operating commercial reactors produce controlled fission reactions that supply the heat for the steam generators to produce electricity to the grid. However, the radiactivity produced in the reactor core elements is only managed by engineered safety barriers.
Both fusion and fission reactions produce cancer-inducing radiation. Death is possible with both.
are you saying the solar system has no order or is not a system at least controlled by many different scientific laws?
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#7530 Jan 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
tina is still arguing the fact that she posted yesterday, "the sun is a nuclear reaction." It is not.
She could not even read her own link correctly. Oh well, that's not new.
and you respond with " it is but its controlled" . She never said anything about it being controlled, but if that's your argument, it is. At least naturally by the distance from the earth, orbit, outer spiral orbit, our atmosphere, even observation according to quantum mechanics.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7531 Jan 6, 2013
There you have it again the spacedoutblues and its butt buddy"pinheadlitesout " gets another spanking.They really really don't know!!!
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#7532 Jan 6, 2013
Neither do I . I'm not a scientist, not even close. But I love to read!
PHD

Overton, TX

#7533 Jan 6, 2013
You bet the "pinheadlitesout and "spacedoutblues" are free entertainment. Nice to read the battle of the witless.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min ptbw forever 1,141,248
NO CANADA OIL to TX-OK! 26 min NO CANADA OIL TO ... 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 53 min Cali Girl 2014 51,233
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr jacques Ottawa 180,587
Need a business partner. 1 hr bulbul 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Always Smile 4,858
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr IBdaMann 48,357
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr author author 98,673
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:00AM
Predictions for Bears' Week 12 Matchup
NBC Sports 7:46 AM
Jay Cutler wants to keep on rolling (out)
NBC Sports11:16 AM
Colts rule out Dwayne Allen and Gosder Cherilus
NBC Sports12:50 PM
Rob Gronkowski fined $8,268 for bouncer move
NFL 1:30 PM
Colt McCoy 'pushing' Robert Griffin III, Gruden says