Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 48,593
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34677 Mar 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Yes we have. We increased CO2 concentration 30ppm during the course of the experiment.[URL deleted]
Many global warming alarmists don't understand what experiments are, how they are used in science or the scientific method. I cite Fair Game's belief that our past CO2 emissions are part of some 'experiment' as proof.
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-pr...

Every schoolchild should understand the basics of science. Climate change mitigation is a hoax because it's never been tried or tested.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34678 Mar 24, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
VERIFIED THROUGH EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION.
Coincidence isn't causality. Experiments are used to verify theories; there's never been an experimental test that's caused any global climate temperature change or evidence of climate change mitigation.

Belief in catastrophic man made global warming isn't based on experimental evidence; that belief is based on faith. Consensus is similar to clerical dogma, not science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34679 Mar 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
AFAICT, he thinks that fixing it is a hoax. He can't describe mitigating experiments, so he won't even TRY to fix it.
I'm no scientists, I don't make experiments for my living. Without experimental data, I have no idea how to fix Earth's climate and there's no way to tell what might make it worse or better.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Perhaps like Rex Tillerson (CEO, ExxonMobil), he figures it'll be EASY to move all those Iowa farms to northern Saskatchewan. Never mind that the glaciers already scraped a bunch of the topsoil from Saskatchewan & deposited it in Iowa; maybe they figure it'll be easy to move back. Just fire up a million diesel trucks.
We've always adapted to climate change by moving; that's a well tested and tried climate change strategy. No human or any other living creature has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change so man made catastrophic global warming is pseudoscience.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34680 Mar 24, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
You know the experiment is ongoing, whether accidental or not....
Experiments aren't done by accident; they are intended to control one variable while measuring other variables. Experiments can be reproduced but history can't; that's one way to learn history isn't an experimental test.

Belief in climate change mitigation is based on misunderstanding science and man made catastrophic climate change alarmism is pseudoscience.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34681 Mar 24, 2013
litesong wrote:
You are right.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for it poorly earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has no other science or mathematics training. To proof its lack,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES. To prove its lack of a soul,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4-time alleged & 3-time proud threatener.
^^^This is just name-calling; insults with no effort to focus on the issue. This is ad hominem argument, a logical fallacy; not logical reasoning.

Most man made climate change alarmists don't understand rational argument, that's why they defame political opponents or argue from consensus. Until they learn how science works, the argument continues.

Since: Mar 09

Parsons, KS

#34682 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is just name-calling; insults with no effort to focus on the issue. This is ad hominem argument, a logical fallacy; not logical reasoning.
Most man made climate change alarmists don't understand rational argument, that's why they defame political opponents or argue from consensus. Until they learn how science works, the argument continues.
Shut up. You have no argument. Are you a RW shill or are you just a radical denier? Perhaps you are just lonesome and this is the only way you can get folks to converse with you. Whatever you are very tiring.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34683 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Many global warming alarmists don't understand what experiments are, how they are used in science or the scientific method. I cite Fair Game's belief that our past CO2 emissions are part of some 'experiment' as proof.
Brian_G wrote:
And we've never tested the greenhouse effect of CO2, if we nuke an underground coal mine that's been enriched with oxygen, can we produce enough CO2 to make a measurable change in temperature? Might be worth a try.
So deliberately releasing CO2 would be an experiment, whereas simply releasing CO2 is not an experiment?

I think even a schoolchild would be able to spot that you are simply a troll.
d pantz

United States

#34684 Mar 24, 2013
Oh my. The ony solution is to enslave poor people who hardly have anything to do with it. Take my land and make me and my children slaves because I drove my toyota tercel to work every day. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-poli...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34685 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm no scientists, I don't make experiments for my living. Without experimental data, I have no idea how to fix Earth's climate and there's no way to tell what might make it worse or better.
.
<quoted text>We've always adapted to climate change by moving; that's a well tested and tried climate change strategy. No human or any other living creature has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change so man made catastrophic global warming is pseudoscience.
The point isn't that we can't move, the point is that it'll be more expensive to do that than it'll be to avoid releasing the CO2 in the 1st place. You want to abandon NYC & all other coastal cities around the world? That'll be a loss of trillions & trillions & trillions of dollars.

In case you don't realize it, you're IN the experiment. We all are. We're adding CO2 to the atmosphere in unprecedented amounts, at completely unprecedented rates, & will eventually find out what it does.

The thing is, your nihilistic attitude will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. How clever of you.

Your psychopathic selfishness is indeed remarkable. You get to burn all the fossil fuels you want, forcing people in the future to pay for it. You save a few pennies at the pump, they pay hundreds of trillions of dollars.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34686 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Coincidence isn't causality. Experiments are used to verify theories; there's never been an experimental test that's caused any global climate temperature change or evidence of climate change mitigation.
Belief in catastrophic man made global warming isn't based on experimental evidence; that belief is based on faith. Consensus is similar to clerical dogma, not science.
This is one of your more stupid comments.

The experiment is ongoing; CO2 now, lots of methane later. Soot has been added to the atmosphere in massive amounts lately, such that warming is not as bad as it could be. Pinatubo was an experiment demonstrating mitigation; the climate cooled for a few years.

You ignore the evidence, but that doesn't change it. There is no coincidence. There's only Brain g's faith that Exxon money will be direct-deposited to his bank account.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34687 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experiments aren't done by accident; they are intended to control one variable while measuring other variables. Experiments can be reproduced but history can't; that's one way to learn history isn't an experimental test.
Belief in climate change mitigation is based on misunderstanding science and man made catastrophic climate change alarmism is pseudoscience.
In your anal-obsessive rulebook, experiments aren't done by accident, but of course, you're wrong.

Nature has been experimenting for eons; it's called evolution. But then, you don't believe in that either. After all, there's no experiment to test it, is there?

There was never a purposeful experiment proving that an atomic bomb was possible. They had to acually set one off to test the theory.

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34688 Mar 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The point isn't that we can't move, the point is that it'll be more expensive to do that than it'll be to avoid releasing the CO2 in the 1st place. You want to abandon NYC & all other coastal cities around the world? That'll be a loss of trillions & trillions & trillions of dollars.
In case you don't realize it, you're IN the experiment. We all are. We're adding CO2 to the atmosphere in unprecedented amounts, at completely unprecedented rates, & will eventually find out what it does.
The thing is, your nihilistic attitude will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. How clever of you.
Your psychopathic selfishness is indeed remarkable. You get to burn all the fossil fuels you want, forcing people in the future to pay for it. You save a few pennies at the pump, they pay hundreds of trillions of dollars.
I am already mourning the loss of New Orleans. It is doomed.

One of the oldest and most beautiful cities in the US, full of history, art, architecture, and valuable commerce, has not recovered from Katrina, which was only a near-miss. It will not survive the next big storm.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34689 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experiments aren't done by accident; they are intended to control one variable while measuring other variables. Experiments can be reproduced but history can't; that's one way to learn history isn't an experimental test.
Belief in climate change mitigation is based on misunderstanding science and man made catastrophic climate change alarmism is pseudoscience.
VERIFIED THROUGH EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION.

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

SFV

#34691 Mar 25, 2013
Arguing with these people is pointless. The earth is flat and u r a heretic if u say otherwise. "They" can't or won't believe empirical data. How can anyone form an opinion if they refuse facts. Capitalism and the free market will save us. Apparently according to one moron all we need to do is adapt by moving. I for one can't wait for the big die off.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34692 Mar 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
...Nature has been experimenting for eons; it's called evolution...
Evolution isn't an experiment. They believe in catastrophic man made global warming because they don't understand science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34693 Mar 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
...The experiment is ongoing; CO2 now, lots of methane later. Soot has been added to the atmosphere in massive amounts lately, such that warming is not as bad as it could be. Pinatubo was an experiment demonstrating mitigation; the climate cooled for a few years....
The Pinatubo eruption and our CO2 emissions aren't an experiment. They don't understand science and they fear what they can't understand.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34694 Mar 25, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...In case you don't realize it, you're IN the experiment. We all are. We're adding CO2 to the atmosphere in unprecedented amounts, at completely unprecedented rates, & will eventually find out what it does....
That's called 'exhaling', it's not an experiment either. You really should learn what experiments are and how they are used to test theories so you can understand science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34695 Mar 25, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
...So deliberately releasing CO2 would be an experiment, whereas simply releasing CO2 is not an experiment?...
Fair Game might be catching on, experiments are deliberate procedures to test theories.

Not only are experiments deliberate, they attempt to control one variable while measuring another variable.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34696 Mar 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Shut up. You have no argument. Are you a RW shill or are you just a radical denier? Perhaps you are just lonesome and this is the only way you can get folks to converse with you. Whatever you are very tiring.
^^^This argument doesn't discuss the issues, it has nothing to say about either man made catastrophic global warming or climate change mitigation. This argument is just cyberbullying and insults.

Ad hominem arguments are fallacies; many alarmists don't understand logic or science.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34697 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Fair Game might be catching on, experiments are deliberate procedures to test theories.
Not only are experiments deliberate, they attempt to control one variable while measuring another variable.
So deliberately releasing CO2 would be an experiment?

Only problem is, your experimental method wouldn't work.
Brian_G wrote:
And we've never tested the greenhouse effect of CO2, if we nuke an underground coal mine that's been enriched with oxygen, can we produce enough CO2 to make a measurable change in temperature? Might be worth a try.
How can we produce enough CO2 to make a measurable change?

By burning coal or oil, of course.

So burning coal or oil deliberately would be an experiment.

Burning it in power stations would not?

A schoolboy would see that that is idiotic.

The fact that you repeat the idiocy makes it obvious that you are simply a troll.

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Teaman 1,144,213
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 3 hr Princess Hey 12,031
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 5 hr zazz 96,566
Attorney, former GOP candidate Deon Long disbarred 10 hr the circus is in ... 1
Bush Family skims one % from Domestic Violence ... 10 hr shamefully 6
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 11 hr bunner 489,660
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 17 hr LizW 70,529
Orlando Dating
Find my Match

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:53 pm PST

NBC Sports 7:53PM
Bills awarded returner Marcus Thigpen on waivers
Bleacher Report 7:19 AM
Breaking Down Colts' Game Plan
Bleacher Report12:04 PM
Complete Preview for Bucs vs. Bengals
Bleacher Report12:05 PM
Betting Odds, Prediction for Giants vs. Jags
Bleacher Report 6:20 PM
How the Buccaneers Can Salvage Season, Make Most of Remaining Games