Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30922 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31977 Apr 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You posted lab experiments on CO2 in an enclosed atmosphere. The results are far lower than any climate sensitivity used by the IPCC. You busted man made global warming alarmism, you didn't post an experimental test of climate change mitigation.
As you said, they are just lab experiments.

Applicable to the real world, but NOT the real world. Real world data give a different result. But, of course you don't want to acknowledge that.

And you said CO2 mitigates a cooling climate without even doing one of your precious experiments.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31978 Apr 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Greenhouse gases are good because they keep the warmth on the surface of Earth....

There he goes again.

He used to say there was no proof of this. He must have done his experiment.

And Kyle noticed too:
In case you missed it, Lyin' Brian has just copped to the fact of CO2 being a critical GHG for regulating Earth's climate. Therefore, he has copped to the fact that increasing it 41%(now) or 100%(in decades) will regulate climate at a drastically different state.

Well, he has, but he'll lie and deny that the undeniable logic above is valid. He'll do so by repeating an already refuted argument that was prima facie retarded or just some handwaving nonsense.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31979 Apr 14, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
As you said, they are just lab experiments.
Right, not field experiments; on this we agree.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Applicable to the real world, but NOT the real world. Real world data give a different result.
No part of science is more real than reproducible experimental data. Gcaveman1
s real world and mine differ, because I look at experimental tests.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
But, of course you don't want to acknowledge that.
I acknowledge the only experimental tests of AGW theory yield far lower climate carbon sensitivity than the IPCC. I acknowledge gcaveman1's real world is made of computer models while I prefer physical models. This is where we differ.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
And you said CO2 mitigates a cooling climate without even doing one of your precious experiments.
I saw the same experiments you did, emitting CO2 does nothing but help. We need more plants to feed, clothe and shelter more people from climate. I favor adapting over mitigating or controlling climate. I'm using real world science to inform my policy, for the greater good instead of selfish altruism.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31980 Apr 14, 2013
Hey folks, science is one universe of unknowns to b_gone above.

It's unaware that CO2 is aka the thermostat.

Its ignorance ignores that fossil fuels and their combustion products are toxic, radioactive, and carcinogenic.

Yet it has posted its "paid" fossil fuel propaganda for more than 40,470 times.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31981 Apr 14, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Greenhouse gases are good because they keep the warmth on the surface of Earth....
There he goes again.
He used to say there was no proof of this. He must have done his experiment.
And Kyle noticed too:
In case you missed it, Lyin' Brian has just copped to the fact of CO2 being a critical GHG for regulating Earth's climate. Therefore, he has copped to the fact that increasing it 41%(now) or 100%(in decades) will regulate climate at a drastically different state.
Well, he has, but he'll lie and deny that the undeniable logic above is valid. He'll do so by repeating an already refuted argument that was prima facie retarded or just some handwaving nonsense.
Or paid to repeat standard fossil fuel propaganda or all of them.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31982 Apr 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, not field experiments; on this we agree.
.
<quoted text>No part of science is more real than reproducible experimental data. Gcaveman1
s real world and mine differ, because I look at experimental tests.
.
<quoted text>I acknowledge the only experimental tests of AGW theory yield far lower climate carbon sensitivity than the IPCC. I acknowledge gcaveman1's real world is made of computer models while I prefer physical models. This is where we differ.
.
<quoted text>I saw the same experiments you did, emitting CO2 does nothing but help. We need more plants to feed, clothe and shelter more people from climate. I favor adapting over mitigating or controlling climate. I'm using real world science to inform my policy, for the greater good instead of selfish altruism.
But you just posted this:

There is no climate thermostat; climate is chaotic. We can't dial it back without the danger of disaster tipping the balance. We won't jeopardize climate without experiments showing the data

There's no dial we can turn, else it would have been tried and tuned. Our CO2 emissions are perfect, they fit without a hitch. Other noxious combustion byproducts might be problems but not carbon dioxide.

Don't panic.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

P.S. b_gone is gone already. How many are there?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31983 Apr 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Hey folks, science is one universe of unknowns to b_gone above. It's unaware that CO2 is aka the thermostat.
Its ignorance ignores that fossil fuels and their combustion products are toxic, radioactive, and carcinogenic. Yet it has posted its "paid" fossil fuel propaganda for more than 40,470 times.
Other molecules are the problem, not CO2. We need fossil fuel to power our economy.

Also, our CO2 emissions aren't a thermostat. Get a grip.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31984 Apr 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, not field experiments; on this we agree.
.
<quoted text>No part of science is more real than reproducible experimental data. Gcaveman1
s real world and mine differ, because I look at experimental tests.
.
<quoted text>I acknowledge the only experimental tests of AGW theory yield far lower climate carbon sensitivity than the IPCC. I acknowledge gcaveman1's real world is made of computer models while I prefer physical models. This is where we differ.
.
<quoted text>I saw the same experiments you did, emitting CO2 does nothing but help. We need more plants to feed, clothe and shelter more people from climate. I favor adapting over mitigating or controlling climate. I'm using real world science to inform my policy, for the greater good instead of selfish altruism.
You wanted experiments; I gave them to you. You liked one, because it seemed to back your denier side. The rest you dismissed as just lab experiments. So now you're harping on one high school science experiment overruling all other experiments and calculations done by degreed scientists. But that's all you can do.

Did you ever tell us why you think the world is warming if not the addition of massive amounts of GHG's?

NO.

You formerly insisted that an experiment was needed to show that climate mitigation was possible. Did you do a real world experiment before you said CO2 was helping us avoid another ice age?

NO.

Since you've been defeated by your own words as far as what is causing warming, you have fallen back to your next trench, sensitivity. I'll bet someone helped you with that: "Hey, boss, I screwed up and admitted that CO2 warms the planet. What do I do now?"

Boss says,"Hit 'em on sensitivity. There's some gray area on that."

"selfish altruism"? Can you define that?
SpaceBlues

United States

#31985 Apr 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Other molecules are the problem, not CO2. We need fossil fuel to power our economy.
Also, our CO2 emissions aren't a thermostat. Get a grip.
Just because you say the opposite of science, you get a grip.

Your 41 thousand posts have failed at changing science. However, 90 million tons of man-made CO2 are being emitted into our atmosphere every day and are changing our global climate.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31986 Apr 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good point, nor does it count their customers, vendors and employees. When you look closely, fossil fuel is the energy that makes our economy thrive and prosper. We need fossil fuel because we depend on light when we flip the switch, not just when solar can get sunlight and the wind is blowing just right. Green energy is bad because it doesn't work; fossil fuel is good because it does.
.
<quoted text>Every consumer has the same interest as the provider; we aren't cooking our meals over dried dung; we use clean energy from fossil fuel. The CEO and the customer make the market together, you can't vilify the rich and exonerate yourself. Alarmists are truth deniers.
Your posts certainly resemble burning dung in a number of ways.

But your glassy-eyed Denierism continues to amuse, as I'm sure you intend it to.:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31987 Apr 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Other molecules are the problem, not CO2. We need fossil fuel to power our economy.
Also, our CO2 emissions aren't a thermostat. Get a grip.
What "problem," I thought there was no greenhouse effect, no mitigation? Surely ALL molecules are created equal by our Creator, endowed with the same inalienable rights to fill our atmosphere with good cheer.

Why the implied bad-mouthing of certain molecules, Brainless? Are you a moleculist or something???

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31988 Apr 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
What "problem," I thought there was no greenhouse effect, no mitigation?
Other way, there is a greenhouse gas effect but climate change mitigation has never been tried or tested.

.
tha Professor wrote:
Surely ALL molecules are created equal by our Creator, endowed with the same inalienable rights to fill our atmosphere with good cheer.
Almost, keep studying.

.
tha Professor wrote:
Why the implied bad-mouthing of certain molecules, Brainless? Are you a moleculist or something???
We need carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or we starve.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31989 Apr 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Other way, there is a greenhouse gas effect but climate change mitigation has never been tried or tested.

>>I think you simply make it whatever "way" you want to depending on what argument you're making in that particular post. That's what trolls DO, of course - the facts mean nothing to them.

<quoted text>Almost, keep studying.

>>I've studied your posts for some time, that's how I know you're a troll.

<quoted text>We need carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or we starve.

>>No one's said otherwise, Mr. Disingenuous.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31990 Apr 15, 2013
Gcaveman suggested an experiment that shows a climate sensitivity much less than 1C. Isn't that reassuring?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31991 Apr 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gcaveman suggested an experiment that shows a climate sensitivity much less than 1C. Isn't that reassuring?
I'm sure that, like the disingenuous moron you are, you'll pretend to be "reassured" by the claim.

I can't wait for the burning of fossil and nuclear fuels to be shut down, personally. I want green energy to replace them, and I want an end to Denierism and fuel-company greed.

Will you shoot yourself when that happens, Brainless?:)
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31992 Apr 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Other way, there is a greenhouse gas effect but climate change mitigation has never been tried or tested.
But, Lyin Brian, you said CO2 mitigated the climate to keep us from freezing.

Did you forget that you said it saved us from another ice age??
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31993 Apr 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gcaveman suggested an experiment that shows a climate sensitivity much less than 1C. Isn't that reassuring?
Just a hi skool lab experiment, you said.

What did the other 11 experiments show?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31994 Apr 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Just a hi skool lab experiment, you said. What did the other 11 experiments show?
Very low values for doubling CO2 in an atmosphere against temperature change. I'm reassured, the IPCC is crack.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31995 Apr 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
But, Lyin Brian, you said CO2 mitigated the climate to keep us from freezing. Did you forget that you said it saved us from another ice age??
Only if AGW alarmism is true; I'm not convinced. I proposed an alternate theory for global warming that explains the same climate facts. Except mine doesn't have a tipping point, climate balance or yet unknown climate driver. And I have the same number of experimental tests to show my theory valid: zero. We're tied.

I believe the sun drives climate. I'm not convinced man made CO2 is significant at all or how it would change climate. There are no experimental tests that show even releasing or collecting CO2 changing global temperature or even a change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Climate change mitigation is a hoax. Man made catastrophic global climate change alarmism is pseudoscience. Get a grip.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31996 Apr 16, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
I'm sure that, like the disingenuous moron you are, you'll pretend to be "reassured" by the claim.
Gcaveman suggested an experiment that shows a climate sensitivity much less than 1C. Isn't that reassuring? Very reassuring!

.
tha Professor wrote:
I can't wait for the burning of fossil and nuclear fuels to be shut down, personally.
Do you think nuclear fuels are burned to produce energy? They aren't. Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gas, except for the infrastructure around them. Even solar or wind generators produce greenhouse gas through the same processes in nuclear energy. Construction, parts, labor, transportation and maintenance create greenhouse gas; that's life. I like fossil fuel because they're easily available and inexpensive. I don't like green energy because it's impractical and expensive.

.
tha Professor wrote:
I want green energy to replace them, and I want an end to Denierism and fuel-company greed.
You think you can end greed? How will you do that, destroying the market? Driving up the price of energy and fuel with new taxes? I believe you.

I want energy freedom, a policy that encourages the production and use of energy and fuel. I'm not sold on any style, other than what the market dictates. Let's end regulation and see what shakes loose?

.
tha Professor wrote:
Will you shoot yourself when that happens, Brainless?:)
Please don't point guns at people, even yourself. The left is just chock full of bad ideas, hate, extremism and irrationality. Get a grip.

I've got too much to live for, if global warming means more extreme weather of all kinds, then it means more extreme beautiful weather too. Bring it on!

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.

Aztec Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fast and Slow Lane (Oct '11) 12 hr Bbb 39
Political sign courtesy. Mar '18 Already 1
News New Mexico school shooting leaves 2 students, s... Feb '18 a poster 114
News Woman pleads to murder for role in drunken fight (May '09) Feb '18 A Person 55
San Juan College Student Housing Feb '18 Geo 2
News Ousted Navajo Head Start leader alleges harassment (Sep '17) Feb '18 Geo 3
News Mark Douglas Spore (Feb '09) Jan '18 tim vechter 16

Aztec Jobs

Personal Finance

Aztec Mortgages