"Global warmist" experts stuck in pol...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#323 Feb 1, 2014
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
There is plenty of proof for AGW. The definition of a fool is someone who looks only in the rear view mirror while driving forward...
Where is the proof that the amount of CO2 that we have put in the atmosphere over the last 100 years has caused any warming.

Don't forget comrade you produce more CO2 than most humans,

You make it sound like the CO2 that humans produce is worse than naturally occurring CO2. Which brings up another question. We, humans, are natural to this planet therefore anything that we do, like a buffalo grazing on the plains and emitting CO2 through it's flatulence, is natural since we are natural beings then it follows that all our CO2 production is natural.

"Strictly from a chemical point of view, one CO2 molecule is the same as the next. There is no difference between manmade and natural CO2 molecules, none at all. The trees in the forests and the algae in the water use them all for the same purpose and in the same way to build up biomass—in plain English, to grow. The plants in the farmers’ fields rely on it as much as the fish feeding on the smaller prey in the water which feeds on algae. Take away that vital nutrient and the whole food chain is in peril; especially the top tier, that‘s us humans.
The difference between manmade (“bad”) and natural (“good”) CO2 is not a chemical one. It only exists in the minds of politicians, bureaucrats and scientists who understand the principle of a dollar sign in front of a number.

Natural CO2 comes without any such sign and, therefore, is of no consequence. Obviously, that’s prevents it from being manipulated or taxed – a fact which makes it then “bad.”

In contrast, manmade CO2 is highly $$$-laden and therefore now “good.”

And that, dear readers, is the only difference between “good” and “bad” CO2!"

http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/good-bad-co2/
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Paradise, CA

#324 Feb 1, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the proof that the amount of CO2 that we have put in the atmosphere over the last 100 years has caused any warming.
Don't forget comrade you produce more CO2 than most humans,
You make it sound like the CO2 that humans produce is worse than naturally occurring CO2. Which brings up another question. We, humans, are natural to this planet therefore anything that we do, like a buffalo grazing on the plains and emitting CO2 through it's flatulence, is natural since we are natural beings then it follows that all our CO2 production is natural.
"Strictly from a chemical point of view, one CO2 molecule is the same as the next. There is no difference between manmade and natural CO2 molecules, none at all. The trees in the forests and the algae in the water use them all for the same purpose and in the same way to build up biomass—in plain English, to grow. The plants in the farmers’ fields rely on it as much as the fish feeding on the smaller prey in the water which feeds on algae. Take away that vital nutrient and the whole food chain is in peril; especially the top tier, that‘s us humans.
The difference between manmade (“bad”) and natural (“good”) CO2 is not a chemical one. It only exists in the minds of politicians, bureaucrats and scientists who understand the principle of a dollar sign in front of a number.
Natural CO2 comes without any such sign and, therefore, is of no consequence. Obviously, that’s prevents it from being manipulated or taxed – a fact which makes it then “bad.”
In contrast, manmade CO2 is highly $$$-laden and therefore now “good.”
And that, dear readers, is the only difference between “good” and “bad” CO2!"
http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/good-bad-co2/
>
>
To summarize most of the article, CO2 is CO2 and nature don't give a damn who or what produces it, that is absolutely true, the only problem is that…

the Earth's environment can only absorb so much CO2 before untoward things begin happening to vegetation, the oceans and in our atmosphere…

Therefore we have a choice of either stop breathing and passing as much gas as we naturally do or to curtail our other CO2 emissions.

As to your notion that just because we are "natural to this planet," as you say, and that therefore it is ok to dump as much garbage into the atmosphere as we want, is plain childish, to say the least.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#325 Feb 1, 2014
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
To summarize most of the article, CO2 is CO2 and nature don't give a damn who or what produces it, that is absolutely true, the only problem is that…
the Earth's environment can only absorb so much CO2 before untoward things begin happening to vegetation, the oceans and in our atmosphere…
Well comrade, built into our climate system are means to dispose of the excess CO2.
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore we have a choice of either stop breathing and passing as much gas as we naturally do or to curtail our other CO2 emissions.
As to your notion that just because we are "natural to this planet," as you say, and that therefore it is ok to dump as much garbage into the atmosphere as we want, is plain childish, to say the least.
Where does the CO2 come from? We are not creating it. The carbon and oxygen molecules are locked up in the fuel we burn and the atmosphere. We are changing the state or releasing what is naturally occurring.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Paradise, CA

#326 Feb 1, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Well comrade, built into our climate system are means to dispose of the excess CO2.
<quoted text>
Where does the CO2 come from? We are not creating it. The carbon and oxygen molecules are locked up in the fuel we burn and the atmosphere. We are changing the state or releasing what is naturally occurring.
>
>
Yes, the Earth has systems to dispose of excess CO2, and also…

too much CO2 is not good for vegetation (you know, the too much of a good thing bit?) also the extra CO2 is acidifying the oceans which is detrimental to marine life and too much CO2 is also greenhousing the planet.

The CO2 was accumulated over millions of years in the fuel we burn, so in effect we have and are releasing countless millions of tons of CO2 which was being sequestered underground for eons, and…

we did it all in a little over a century...
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#327 Feb 1, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Well comrade, built into our climate system are means to dispose of the excess CO2.
<quoted text>
Where does the CO2 come from? We are not creating it. The carbon and oxygen molecules are locked up in the fuel we burn and the atmosphere. We are changing the state or releasing what is naturally occurring.
GRANDPA made a fine reply to this ridiculous post of yours, but I broke out laughing when I read it, and had to respond.

Since we're simply 'releasing' CO2 when we burn certain fuels, it's ok, because that's a natural occurrence. Carbon and oxygen are natural molecules which become CO2 when burned so, hey, it's just nature.

So, if someone wanted to burn down a house by using a match and natural flammables, that's just nature. The arsonist didn't burn down the house, it was those naturally occurring parts of nature that did it.

I'd love to see the arsonist make that case in court. And the insurance company may find it difficult to persuade the burnt out homeowner that they won't pay for the damage-- because it was just nature that burnt down the house.
Tree Frog

Chico, CA

#328 Feb 1, 2014
Prince Charles has called people who deny human-made climate change a "headless chicken brigade" who are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence.
http://news.yahoo.com/prince-charles-slams-cl...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#329 Feb 1, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
GRANDPA made a fine reply to this ridiculous post of yours, but I broke out laughing when I read it, and had to respond.
Since we're simply 'releasing' CO2 when we burn certain fuels, it's ok, because that's a natural occurrence. Carbon and oxygen are natural molecules which become CO2 when burned so, hey, it's just nature.
So, if someone wanted to burn down a house by using a match and natural flammables, that's just nature. The arsonist didn't burn down the house, it was those naturally occurring parts of nature that did it.
I'd love to see the arsonist make that case in court. And the insurance company may find it difficult to persuade the burnt out homeowner that they won't pay for the damage-- because it was just nature that burnt down the house.
Your comparisons are as usual completely wrong. You are assuming that the amount of CO2 produced by humans is causing other humans harm whereas an arson is undeniably causing harm to others. The only harm being done to other humans regarding CO2 are the regulations enacted because of the misguided belief in the theory that anthropogenic CO2 production is somehow causing the earth to warm and in the process harming others. Zero proof.

You AGW alarmists are a joke. You sit here comfortably in the West in front of your computers all comfortable and well fed, emitting far more CO2 than any Third World citizen, blathering away about some mythical global warming caused by humans smugly trying to tell others how to live while you continue to burn far more fossil fuels than they will ever see.
Why don't you try limiting your own CO2 production if you feel it is a problem and leave everybody else alone.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#330 Feb 2, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comparisons are as usual completely wrong. You are assuming that the amount of CO2 produced by humans is causing other humans harm whereas an arson is undeniably causing harm to others. The only harm being done to other humans regarding CO2 are the regulations enacted because of the misguided belief in the theory that anthropogenic CO2 production is somehow causing the earth to warm and in the process harming others. Zero proof.
.
>
>
This statement of yours is par for the course for some who votes against himself because he has been misled to the point where he places the interest of his handlers (oil companies, Koch brothers, etc) way ahead of his own, and…

if you are of the conviction that there is "Zero proof" that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm and harming others then you have not looked far enough.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#331 Feb 2, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>

You AGW alarmists are a joke. You sit here comfortably in the West in front of your computers all comfortable and well fed, emitting far more CO2 than any Third World citizen, blathering away about some mythical global warming caused by humans smugly trying to tell others how to live while you continue to burn far more fossil fuels than they will ever see.
Why don't you try limiting your own CO2 production if you feel it is a problem and leave everybody else alone.
>
>
Just because you lead a profligate life style does not mean that there aren't those who go to great lengths to do their part to cut down on their CO2 emissions...
The right is wrong

Chico, CA

#332 Feb 2, 2014
Tree Frog wrote:
Prince Charles has called people who deny human-made climate change a "headless chicken brigade" who are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence.
http://news.yahoo.com/prince-charles-slams-cl...
I

Yeah let's listen to that dumbazz b/c he's such an authority on the subject

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#333 Feb 2, 2014
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
Just because you lead a profligate life style does not mean that there aren't those who go to great lengths to do their part to cut down on their CO2 emissions...
Ah, but you still want to impose a strict regulations on your fellow man who struggles to survive everyday. A life that would be immensely improved by fossil fuels. Yet you and your fellow travelers want to deny those families a life that even the most frugal of us lives every day with no thought or consequence to those around us suffering daily.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#334 Feb 2, 2014
Computer modeling the climate at its best. According to Hansen, comrade and tps go to scientist, and NASA.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58...

The entire AGW alarmist cult is based on science like this.
Local

Lakeport, CA

#335 Feb 2, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but you still want to impose a strict regulations on your fellow man who struggles to survive everyday. A life that would be immensely improved by fossil fuels. Yet you and your fellow travelers want to deny those families a life that even the most frugal of us lives every day with no thought or consequence to those around us suffering daily.
Your statement is very revealing about the mind set of the Global Warmists.
While they develope theory in their safe sanitized publically funded labs, most of the world suffers mightily.
and then they venture out to prove their theory, and Lead scientiic "warmer" expert on the "ship of (expert) fools(professor Turney) expected a balmy summer cruise through the antactic while they collected data to support their man made glabal warmist theory.
Well, we all know that their icebreaker ship was frozen in the polar ice requiring that a dirty fossil fuel burning heliocopter rescue them from certain death costing untold taxpayer millions.
It has become painfully obvious that this (expert)clown doesn't know what he is doing.
The alarmists can keep misrepresenting the truth by repeatedly saying,“This is consistent with our climate models,” but shutting your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and loudly repeating a lie over and over again does not make the lie true.
They(the expert warmers) are beginning to look like spoiled rch kids covering their ears and screaming lalalalalalalalalalalalala when confronted with the most recent climate data.
Avoiding public debate with skeptical(expert) opposing views and gobbling up more and more taxpayer funding in the process.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/...
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Paradise, CA

#336 Feb 2, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but you still want to impose a strict regulations on your fellow man who struggles to survive everyday. A life that would be immensely improved by fossil fuels. Yet you and your fellow travelers want to deny those families a life that even the most frugal of us lives every day with no thought or consequence to those around us suffering daily.
>
>
Baloney!

First off, your conservative ideology is at odds with your rhetoric because most right wing nuts prefer that the tycoons further enrich themselves rather than pay decent wages to those "who struggles to survive everyday"

Second, the wind and the sun can generate enough energy to provide a comfortable life style for all.

Lastly, if we continue on emitting fossil fuel byproducts into the atmosphere, as most of us are accustomed of doing, then all of us but the worlds 85 richest people will be "suffering daily"
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Paradise, CA

#337 Feb 2, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
Computer modeling the climate at its best. According to Hansen, comrade and tps go to scientist, and NASA.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58...
The entire AGW alarmist cult is based on science like this.
>
>
So what exactly is your problem, SAM…??

Are you having difficulties seeing that the actual readings in the chart clearly reflect a rising temperature trend since the early 60's…?

or were you looking at the chart upside down, or what…??
Local

Lakeport, CA

#338 Feb 2, 2014
In like a lion, out like a lamb—or, it began with a growl, but ended with a whimper! What did? Why, Global Warming, naturally. Of course, it wasn’t supposed to end like this! Midwest wind-chill temperatures could hit -70&#730; tonight, as meteorologists predict the lowest readings in decades. Meanwhile, in the antarctic, pinned near glaciers, a second ice breaker must be freed by the US Coast Guard.

isn’t it time we hold self-professed liberal “experts” accountable for all the many times they are mistaken? Especially when these mistakes cost society wealth and lives? After all, if leftists were screaming for the head of top duck Phil Robertson, for his sins—shouldn’t they be good sports and voluntarily drop out?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/...
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#339 Feb 2, 2014
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comparisons are as usual completely wrong. You are assuming that the amount of CO2 produced by humans ..
You cannot even keep your absurd argument straight. Above, you state the "CO2 produced by humans". But in your earlier post you said, "Where does the CO2 come from? We are not creating it. The carbon and oxygen molecules are locked up in the fuel we burn and the atmosphere. We are changing the state or releasing what is naturally occurring."

Let me make this very clear for you to understand. The post of yours which I responded to said that "we are not creating" CO2. But in THIS post you're admitting that human create CO2.

And my joking analogy about the arsonist was based on your ridiculous assertion that since CO2 just happens naturally when burning fossil fuels, then it's just a natural process which we need not concern ourselves about.
Sam Lowree wrote:
<The only harm being done to other humans regarding CO2 are the regulations enacted because of the misguided belief in the theory that anthropogenic CO2 production is somehow causing the earth to warm and in the process harming others.
Regulations against pollution and CO2 emissions are hurting "us"? How? Please be specific.
Sam Lowree wrote:
< Zero proof.
You can, and will say that there's zero proof for AGW forever, but it means absolutely nothing. Have you ever googled "proof of AGW"? Have you ever read about the actual scientific evidence? Or do you just go along with the anti-science, pro- Big Energy crowd?
Sam Lowree wrote:
<You AGW alarmists are a joke. You sit here comfortably in the West in front of your computers all comfortable and well fed, emitting far more CO2 than any Third World citizen, blathering away about some mythical global warming caused by humans smugly trying to tell others how to live while you continue to burn far more fossil fuels than they will ever see.
Why don't you try limiting your own CO2 production if you feel it is a problem and leave everybody else alone.
What a silly little rant.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#340 Feb 2, 2014
It's hilarious that sam and loco have completely ignored our current drought in California, which is the worst in many years. Loco just keeps repeating that the scientists' ship was stuck in Antarctic sea ice, which he thinks negates global warming.
BTW, there are no 'balmy' summers in Antarctica. Global warming has not yet made this a vacation destination to rival Hawaii. It's still a freezingly cold area-- but warm enough to be melting ice sheets into the surrounding seas. And that ice, plus the blizzard WEATHER conditions, caused them to get stuck.
But GRANDPA and I could repeat this a thousand times and he still won't get it.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#341 Feb 2, 2014
The California drought is consistent with what climate scientists have been saying about global warming-- it's going to cause more droughts.

"Global warming affects evapotranspiration—the movement of water into the atmosphere from land and water surfaces and plants due to evaporation and transpiration— which is expected to lead to:

Increased drought in dry areas. In drier regions, evapotranspiration may produce periods of drought—defined as below-normal levels of rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and lack of enough soil moisture in agricultural areas.

Precipitation has declined in the tropics and subtropics since 1970. Southern Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and the U.S. Southwest, for example, are getting drier. Even areas that remain relatively wet can experience long, dry conditions between extreme precipitation events.

Expansion of dry areas. Scientists expect the amount of land affected by drought to grow by mid-century—and water resources in affected areas to decline as much as 30 percent."

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-e...
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#342 Feb 2, 2014
What about the freezing weather in our eastern and even southern states? Pro- fossil fuel shills claim that the polar vortex completely negates AGW.

Uhh, no it doesn't. "In a world without global warming, the temperature difference between the freezing Arctic and warmer lower latitudes creates a pressure field that confines the jet stream to a relatively tight band around the Arctic, with wave-like meanders characterized by ephemeral "ridges" and "troughs."

As the Arctic melts and warms, however, that temperature difference is reduced, and the meanders of the jet stream potentially become more pronounced and more sluggish. The more sluggish and persistent those meanders, the more persistent the patterns of regional warmth where the jet stream pulls warm air northward, and the regional cold where it pulls arctic air south."

http://www.livescience.com/43033-polar-vortex...

To summarize, in a non- global warming environment the Arctic jet streams circulate around the pole more tightly, keeping the freezing weather up there. But as the globe warms the temperature difference between the Arctic and areas south decrease, and the jet streams say down into our states.

Studying our AGW climate is an ongoing study. It's not 'all figured out' what's going to come next. But climate scientists have said repeatedly that the indications are for more and more extreme weather.

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.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Summer FLOODS in L.A 9 min Local 22
Why are there so many rules? 15 min Homer 17
Another mass shooting 18 min Honus Wagner 64
GOP destroying ITSELF 34 min Casual visitor 21
SOME of President OBAMAS accomplishments 52 min GRANDPA NICOLAI 45
OBAMA slaps TRUMP and HACK-A-BEE 53 min GRANDPA NICOLAI 11
Trump capmain caught in a big lie. 55 min GRANDPA NICOLAI 14
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richvale Mortgages