Climate continues to change.

[phrodeau]

And not one teensy fact in the whole article, to back it up.

It’s a theory.

Learn the difference.

I showed you why I think it’s right. Now you show me why you think it’s wrong.

 

[Kantarii]

Weather was nice today in Atlanta. I laid out and worked on my tan
Kant

 

[Klinkster]

Sorry.....no you haven’t. Not even close.
Your article shows nothing, to support that CO2, made by man, is causing the planet to get warmer. Nothing.
It only says they can identify ‘man made’ CO2 by isotopes.
It assumes that man made CO2 must be doing it.

I made no claims. You did. I have nothing to prove.
So......You prove it.
You can’t.

I showed you why I think it’s right. Now you show me why you think it’s wrong.

 

[Que]

I showed you why I think it’s right. Now you show me why you think it’s wrong.

I can explain it. He is wrong about the source for carbon but not necessarily all greenhouse gases. There's a lot of naturally occurring methane. Typically, your "victory" misses the larger point.

It's wrong because that's simply a reflection of the percentage of energy that we are getting from fossil fuels. That percentage would be entirely different if we followed your plan and simply clear-cut forest and burn those for heat instead of using fossil fuel. The net amount of carbon dioxide emitted would be higher if we use trees then if we used fossil fuel. I've explained this to you before but like every other concept I've explained to you you're incapable of understanding.

It's not at all surprising that the bulk of the carbon that is being emitted by humans is from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are more efficient to utilize; they are more efficient to transport.

Why do you hate poor people and why would you object to raising their standard of living through the use of fossil fuels? Do you hate for us so much that you want poor people chopping them down?

 

[Que]

. . .but anyway, biochar is gonna be great, right? It is (in your mind) "carbon neutral" so that thtoxic, polluting carbon dioxide all comes from biomass and will just become plants again (unlike co2 from fossil fuel burning which plants totally hate)

Have you looked into investing in Mantria? Yuuuge returns while saving the planet. In addition to currently available on The Clinton Foundation's website glowing testimonials, you can look them up on Bloomberg .com and see they are totally legit:

"Mantria Corporation engages in the development of residential communities and also produces Biochar, a charcoal substitute made from organic waste. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania."

With Clinton and Bloomberg giving their imprimatur of legitimacy, and testimonials of early investor's stupendous gains, I think you should jump in.

This sounds like they share your values, no?

"$128 million company focusing on green community development, socially responsible investing, distressed real estate fund management, mortgage banking, renewable energy, music and entertainment and philanthropy. Mantria also described its foundation called Mantria Green – a set of pioneering principles for developing premium land and real estate with carbon emission offsetting and environmentally conscious design"

Trash into Biochar you can use for heating cooking etc.

I read somewhere they are the largest producer of Biochar with like 36 plants in production all over the country.

 

[phrodeau]

Glad to see you're researching alternative energy sources.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

I made no claims.

No....it's not.

It looks to me like you did.

 

[Que]

Glad to see you're researching alternative energy sources.

So you in?

It sounds promising. I al all about efficient uses of resourcee and anything that would remove things from our trash stream tends to reduce our landfill needs which I consider a far bigger problem than carbon dioxide.

I'm on the fence because I'm concerned about future generations. If we stop putting carbon dioxide into the air how will we prevent the coming Ice Age?

 

[heathergives]

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a26765687/alternative-fuel-carbon-dioxide/

The missing ingredient isn't water, carbon, or electricity. It's money. CE says its fuel will cost about $4 per U.S. gallon—much more than most people in North America pay currently (in January 2019, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. was $2.23). The company hopes to attract customers in forward-thinking places like California, which runs the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program that requires petroleum providers to reduce the carbon emissions of their products.

 

[Que]

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a26765687/alternative-fuel-carbon-dioxide/

That's not so much a viable fuel source as a viable means to store energy that you generate through some other means

It's a battery.

 

[heathergives]

That's not so much a viable fuel source as a viable means to store energy that you generate through some other means

It's a battery.

The basis of CE's technology is the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, a process that combines carbon monoxide (converted from carbon dioxide by a synthetic-gas generator) with hydrogen under pressure, using a metal catalyst such as cobalt or iron to create a liquid hydrocarbon.

Comprehend much?

 

[Que]

Comprehend much?

"Under pressure?"


Do you even science?

For a starter I would suggest that you bone up on the law of conservation of energy.

 

[Que]

. . on the other hand maybe they made a magic colander that sieves the carbon monoxide molecules from the oxygen atoms. You could expect those oxygen atoms to just combine on their own to O2 (maybe O3 if you get some lightening or site tge plant by the ocean) and float off into space or be carried out of tge plant in the workers tissues through metabolic processes ofrcombined with carbon from specially designed high-carbohydrate worker diets that would produce CO2 which could then be fed back into the reaction. so it's not like you have to truck the oxygen off-site.

And as far as pressurized hydrogen maybe what you could do is use the magic colander to separate hydrogen atoms from oxygen atoms in water molecules put them through a magic funnel where they then pressurize themselves so that you can then run them over a catalyst and create your fuel.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just invent a gold-plated perpetual motion machine?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Come back when you teach yourself what a scientific theory is, douchenozzle.

This might help KlinksterVonShitbag
https://i.imgur.com/ewwsBs8.jpg

 

[nowisthetime]

This might help KlinksterVonShitbag
https://i.imgur.com/ewwsBs8.jpg

Thank you, backed by decades of research and multiple peer reviewed journals.

I chalk it up to the age old animosity of fringe rightists towards science, and their natural arrogance and supreme skepticism.

 

[Klinkster]

You have nothing but theory.
You have no proof.
You cannot corollate CO2 content to the atmosphere, to degrees of warming.
You do have a consensus of paid off scientists.....that’s it.
Climate models, have failed.
Predictions, have not come true. None.
Temperature data, has been falsified. Proven.

Keep working on it cactus humper.

This might help KlinksterVonShitbag
https://i.imgur.com/ewwsBs8.jpg

 

[von_Bismarck]

You have nothing but theory.
You have no proof.
You cannot corollate CO2 content to the atmosphere, to degrees of warming.
You do have a consensus of paid off scientists.....that’s it.
Climate models, have failed.
Predictions, have not come true. None.
Temperature data, has been falsified. Proven.

Keep working on it cactus humper.

It would help your case if you could properly spell correlate, and didn't repeat the tired phrase "You have nothing but a theory," which is neither charitable nor accurate.

 

[Klinkster]

List your proof skidmark.

It would help your case if you could properly spell correlate, and didn't repeat the tired phrase "You have nothing but a theory," which is neither charitable nor accurate.

 

[trysail]

"...At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking, they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold. These winds are in the form of waves. The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather. In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t.

This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.

Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster.

Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse.

Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.
​

Conclusion

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science. There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’. "​

-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology​

​

 

[nowisthetime]

What part of extensive research backed by multiple peer-reviewed journal articles do you not understand?

When someone uses the term "politically correct" in a perjorative manner, that means he is quite bitter and has a sinister agenda. Red flag right there.

Stay away from Fox News and quit listening to your inept talking heads. Or perhaps you work for the fossil fuel industry? At least that is a legit excuse.

 

[Klinkster]

What part of proof don’t you understand?

What part of extensive research backed by multiple peer-reviewed journal articles do you not understand?

When someone uses the term "politically correct" in a perorative manner, that means he is quite bitter and has a sinister agenda. Red flag right there.

Stay away from Fox News and quit listening to your inept talking heads. Or perhaps you work for the fossil fuel industry? At least that is a legit excuse.

 

[von_Bismarck]

What part of extensive research backed by multiple peer-reviewed journal articles do you not understand?

When someone uses the term "politically correct" in a perorative manner, that means he is quite bitter and has a sinister agenda. Red flag right there.

Stay away from Fox News and quit listening to your inept talking heads. Or perhaps you work for the fossil fuel industry? At least that is a legit excuse.

Legit, but dishonorable. I think that's trysail's schtick.

 

[gunthernehmen]

https://i.imgur.com/ewwsBs8.jpg

Your graphic clearly shows the "cause" of climate change as a theory, not as a natural law. Thanks for that. It might help enlighten some of the fake scientists hereabouts like VB.

He's a little sketchy on scientific method.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Time to go to school!

(But...but..GLOBAL COOLING)At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking, they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold. These winds are in the form of waves. The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather. In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t.

(BUT..BUT...SEA LEVELS!)This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.

(BUT..BUT...COMPUTER MODELS!)Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster.

(BUT...BUT...GREENLAND ICE MASS!) Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse.
Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.


Conclusion
So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. (BUT...BUT...NOT 97%)False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science. There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’. "

-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

You can tell when Trysail, Queen of Shitbag Denialists, is in full-panic mode when she dumps a Gish Gallop in a post.

Let's unpack her lies...

• (But...but..GLOBAL COOLING) Lie 14:When Climate Change Denialist Shitbags splutter "but...but..GLOBAL COOLING!"
• (BUT..BUT...SEA LEVELS!)Lie 25:When Climate Change Denialist Shitbags splutter "but...but..SEA LEVELS!"
• (BUT..BUT...COMPUTER MODELS!)Lie 6:When Climate Change Denialist Shitbags splutter "but...but..COMPUTER MODELS!"
• (BUT..BUT...GREENLAND ICE MASS!)Lie 41:When Climate Change Denialist Shitbags splutter "but...but..GREENLAND ICE MASS!"
• (BUT..BUT...NOT 97%!)Lie 120:When Climate Change Denialist Shitbags splutter "but...but..NOT 97%!"

Complete list of top 197 Climate Denialist Falsehoods with rebuttals

Keep 'em coming Trysail!

 

[phrodeau]

I like this bit: "Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted."

Acknowledging a problem is the first step.