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

Brian_G wrote:

"In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
BTW, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it's survived far worse than humans can possibly do.

Others have adjusted it upwards, as the next sentence would tell you. But honesty isn't important if you're a Denier troll, is it Brainless?

Your "faith" is utterly unscientific, which confirms your lack of credibility here.

Here's the part Brainless_G the Climate-Denying Faith Healer left out:

"Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century."

Oh, gosh, you mean Arrenhius DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING?

LOL

The Iron Dictator wrote:

<quoted text>The scientists say Jewish control of Mass Media and Banks in USA is rea,now we must do something.

You're an anti-Semitic nutball. Please leave this thread.

tha Professor wrote:

Others have adjusted it upwards, as the next sentence would tell you. But honesty isn't important if you're a Denier troll, is it Brainless? Your "faith" is utterly unscientific, which confirms your lack of credibility here.

My standard is the experimental record; there's never been a successful experiment that shows either man made climate change or climate change mitigation. If I were to see a successful experiment,I'd change my mind.

What would it take for you to change your mind about climate change mitigation? If you can't answer; I'd say your view is based on faith.

Big_Goof is either a paid shill or simply a brainless denier. Either way, there is nothing gained by responding to his inane posts. It is like arguing with a two year old.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>My standard is the experimental record; there's never been a successful experiment that shows either man made climate change or climate change mitigation. If I were to see a successful experiment,I'd change my mind.
What would it take for you to change your mind about climate change mitigation? If you can't answer; I'd say your view is based on faith.

Nuts. Spam. Clueless.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>My standard is the experimental record; there's never been a successful experiment that shows either man made climate change or climate change mitigation. If I were to see a successful experiment,I'd change my mind.
What would it take for you to change your mind about climate change mitigation? If you can't answer; I'd say your view is based on faith.

You know, I remember in 6th grade we had a terrarium in our classroom that was self-sustaining as a scientific fact of an ecosystem.

I would imagine a "scientist" might create one and increase the levels of CO2 in one and record the results.
Perhaps they have and to their chagrin they find that the green plants in it thrive better and produce more oxygen which in turn aids the lifeforms in it.
Of course the flaw is that an external source of CO2 is introduced which contradicts an ecosystem. But, I think the results could be eye-opening. Just wouldn't be able to obtain any grant money to fund the truth afterwards.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Big_Goof is either a paid shill...... It is like arguing with a two year old.

Correction:
"Big_Goof is either a paid shill......" should be,
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver is paid to shrill......"

&
Two years old? Why so much credit.

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>You know, I remember in 6th grade we had a terrarium in our classroom that was self-sustaining as a scientific fact of an ecosystem.
I would imagine a "scientist" might create one and increase the levels of CO2 in one and record the results.
Perhaps they have and to their chagrin they find that the green plants in it thrive better and produce more oxygen which in turn aids the lifeforms in it.
Of course the flaw is that an external source of CO2 is introduced which contradicts an ecosystem. But, I think the results could be eye-opening. Just wouldn't be able to obtain any grant money to fund the truth afterwards.

An idiot whose understanding of science ended at the 6th grade level wouldn't get any science grant money at all.

Of course, you MIGHT get a hefty grant from the Koch Bros. or other Big Energy financial source to spread your brand of "science" across the 'net and aid and abet the cause of Denierism. That's where all the money is anyway, might as well give it a try...:)

tha Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
An idiot whose understanding of science ended at the 6th grade level wouldn't get any science grant money at all.
Of course, you MIGHT get a hefty grant from the Koch Bros. or other Big Energy financial source to spread your brand of "science" across the 'net and aid and abet the cause of Denierism. That's where all the money is anyway, might as well give it a try...:)

Whatsa matter? Simple science confound you? Not smarter than a 6th grader?

I just presented a very simple way of proving what is being shoveled is BS and yet you can refute noting with facts.

What a joke.

I bet you think that biofuel is the answer of the future, don't you?

I went to a lab at a university receiving grant money for this "wonderful scientific break through" using algea to create this fuel. I asked a simple question of the scientists showing their wonderful program and it shut them down as the follow-on questions from the other dignitaries began to fly.

"So, how will this fuel be more efficient since it's energy density is about 1/5 of that of gasoline?"

See? Science requires real questions based on real world science and not grant money fantasies.

Science says comet hits are real but not climate change!
Show us former climate change believers just one single IPCC warning report that is not full of "maybes". Show us ANY scientific paper that says a climate crisis WILL happen. Science has never said any crisis was certain, imminent, eventual, inevitable or "WILL" happen yet science can say comet hits are a real eventual crisis but science has NEVER said the same for climate change crisis. Prove us wrong!
27 years of maybe means it won't be.

Already these climatic changes doesnt periodically for thousands of years ?

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>Whatsa matter? Simple science confound you? Not smarter than a 6th grader?
I just presented a very simple way of proving what is being shoveled is BS and yet you can refute noting with facts.
What a joke.
I bet you think that biofuel is the answer of the future, don't you?
I went to a lab at a university receiving grant money for this "wonderful scientific break through" using algea to create this fuel. I asked a simple question of the scientists showing their wonderful program and it shut them down as the follow-on questions from the other dignitaries began to fly.
"So, how will this fuel be more efficient since it's energy density is about 1/5 of that of gasoline?"
See? Science requires real questions based on real world science and not grant money fantasies.

You "presented" a 6th-grade experiment which proves that plants need C02. Wow, I would NEVER have thought of that myself, what a GENIUS!

LOL

Nice biofuel strawman, incidentally...:)

mememine69 wrote:

Science says comet hits are real but not climate change!
Show us former climate change believers just one single IPCC warning report that is not full of "maybes". Show us ANY scientific paper that says a climate crisis WILL happen. Science has never said any crisis was certain, imminent, eventual, inevitable or "WILL" happen yet science can say comet hits are a real eventual crisis but science has NEVER said the same for climate change crisis. Prove us wrong!
27 years of maybe means it won't be.

Idiot. All science is full of "maybes" in the sense that there are few if any absolute certainties.

Climate change is real, "belief" has nothign to do with it. A climate crisis IS happening. Will it continue to happen? Depends on a lot of factors, including whether humans try to do anything about it.

Comets and asteroids HAVE hit the earth...one was a few weeks ago. Did you miss it? It was all over the internet, seriously.

"Prove" who "wrong" about what? What are you babbling about?

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

..EDITED...I went to a lab at a university receiving grant money for this "wonderful scientific break through" using algea to create this fuel. I asked a simple question of the scientists showing their wonderful program and it shut them down as the follow-on questions from the other dignitaries began to fly.
"So, how will this fuel be more efficient since it's energy density is about 1/5 of that of gasoline?"
..EDITED....

Why would I believe that any of this actually happened? You're clearly not smart enough to confound a room full of otters, much less one full of scientists.

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

..EDITED....I bet you think that biofuel is the answer of the future, don't you?
I went to a lab at a university receiving grant money for this "wonderful scientific break through" using algea to create this fuel. I asked a simple question of the scientists showing their wonderful program and it shut them down as the follow-on questions from the other dignitaries began to fly.
"So, how will this fuel be more efficient since it's energy density is about 1/5 of that of gasoline?"..EDITED....

Hmm...in actually checking on your claim, it appears to be false:

http://www.algaebiodieselinfo.com/tag/energy-...

"Butanol can be made from algae using only a solar powered biorefinery. This fuel has an energy density similar to gasoline, and greater than that of either ethanol or methanol. In most gasoline engines, butanol can be used in place of gasoline with no modifications. In several tests, butanol consumption is similar to that of gasoline, and when blended with gasoline, provides better performance and corrosion resistance than that of ethanol.

The green waste left over from the algae oil extraction can be used to produce butanol."

Well?:)

Sorry (well, not THAT sorry) about the double post...:)

tha Professor wrote:

You're clearly not smart enough to confound a room full of otters.

Hey, hey, hey...... Otters are pretty smart. Ya gotta be smart to forge a living in the wild outdoors..... & have fun also. A room full of 'Socialism is for Sissies' putzes are 'out-foxed' by one otter.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, hey, hey...... Otters are pretty smart. Ya gotta be smart to forge a living in the wild outdoors..... & have fun also. A room full of 'Socialism is for Sissies' putzes are 'out-foxed' by one otter.

I concede your point...:)

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>Whatsa matter?.. I asked a simple question of the scientists showing their wonderful program and it shut them down as the follow-on questions from the other dignitaries began to fly.
..

You set them up in front of the vip's and they did not want to be rude to you about your rude stupidity.

Whatsa matter? No one gives you research funds for not doing research.