I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here
-
Well great Chris. Are we in big trouble or not?
WSS
-
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. Yet the expenditure continues to rise. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
-
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. Yet the expenditure continues to rise. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth why if you want and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
I know exactly what we're talking about.
-
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more then reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems too, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
-
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists.
-
OK first, there's no need to copy and paste articles, people are perfectly capable of clicking a link. It just clogs up the thread and people skip over it. Post key points if you like, but by posting the whole thing you're just going to get people ignoring it. Chris
**********************************************
You are almost correct - but the problem is, links to the contrary are ignored so the mmgw bitcher can'
simply reinterate blather.
The "97 percent" is nonsense. Thousands and thousands of scientists have petitioned that their names
be deleted from the IPCC report....that was CHANGED after they signed it. That is dishonest manipulation of the
facts. You simply take out the parts that show common sense explanations and tentative questions to be answered,
and voila ! you have a declaration that we are all going to die on a fried planet if we don't allow ourselves
to be taxed out our wazoos, vote for liberals, and let them control every freakin thing we ever decide or do,
how we live, everything.
That's bullcrap. Chris - I've already posted about 37,000 scientists who petitioned that their names
be DELETED from that report that was censored enough to be alarmist after all those groups signed on to it.
It's a scandal, just like the fraud studies - Tree Ring, and the bs graph, Hockey Stick. And the email scandal
that clearly showed dishonesty and bias over mmgw controversy.
The next time I post that link, I'll just also post the entire article, because apparently, in lib land, it's all too
easy to avoid clicking the link on purpose, when you know it's not going fit your lib agenda.
You can take that bs 97 percent and shove it. It's a lie.
It's political theater. Otherwise, the scientists would at least once, would talk about the destruction
of our world's virgin rainforests, and even over-development of our forests and green spaces in general
around the world.
What stupidass "scientist" would claim that CO2 is a poison that kills plants?
Not one, I think. Not an honest one.
Is a rising rate of CO2 concerning? sure. But going after cows farting, and suv's, and gloating that
it's a democrat liberal cause etc...
is bogus. CO2 is rising, and we have been cooling. Liberal scientists are dumbfounded? I doubt it.
I'm sure they understand that plant life on this planet uses CO2 in the photosynthesis process.
But too many have been happy to go bs science to manipulate data and studies to show that
liberal politicians should have more power to tax more ,fine more, and control more of everything
because they are....liberal, too.
Just once, Chris, leave liberal land and admit that the correlation of sun spot activity and global temps
is a very serious, pertinent, interesting study. I've posted those graphs in the past. Perhaps you quickly refused to click the link
explaining them again.
-
One more thing - this planet is growing a greater human population all the time.
and mankind is destroying green space and paving and cement and building over top of it.
There. That's a major thing that partisan sniping over CO2 and lawn mowing and not enough
money and taxes....etc etc etc etc doesn't admit.
Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more
and more over time.
These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it.
Why?
No freakin money it for liberal causes. No grants to be had for it. No political advantage for votes and $$$$$$$$$$ for it.
-
You're talking about the OISM petition? Haven't we been through why that's irrelevant already? You talk about 'scientists' disagreeing, but the scientists signing the petition are biologists, physicists, chemists etc - not climatologists, who are the actual experts.
Just because I have a postgraduate degree in theoretical finance - including advanced statistcs, stochastic calculus and quantitative modelling methodologies - doesn't mean that I'm qualified to give an *expert* opinion on climate. I can relay what the science says, because I'm relatively intelligent and articulate, but that doesn't mean I'm an expert, and it's those people who have dedicated their lives to research in this field we should be listening to.
-
Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken.
A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool.
That would make the danger worse each and every day.
Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons.
My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint.
As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong?
WSS
-
Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken.
A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool.
That would make the danger worse each and every day.
Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons.
My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint.
As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong?
WSS
Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken.
A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool.
That would make the danger worse each and every day.
Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons.
My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint.
As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong?
WSS
OK, let's make a slight tweak to your situation to make it more representative of the situation.
You have a pool of 1000 gallons of ammonia. This is perfectly fine, and keeps the garden shiny and new. If there's too much ammonia, the garden will be in danger, and if there's not enough ammonia, the garden will be in danger for different reasons.
Now, every day, you get rainfall in to your pool of something around a pint of ammonia, sometimes more, sometimes less. But, something like a pint of ammonia is used in keeping the garden shiny (hence why if there's not enough it's in danger). So it roughly evens itself out.
Now, if you start adding pints of ammonia yourself every day, you'll quickly find that the amount coming in to the system is exceeding the amount going out on a regular basis. This causes problems for your garden.
You realise this is a problem, but because of your fertilization techniques (see, I know *something* about farming!), you have a load of ammonia that means you need to dump a pint a day, so you can't just stop. What you can do, is plant a few extra plants, trees and everything else that uses the ammonia, so that a pint and a few ounces are being used every day instead of a pint, while at the same time you reduce the amount of ammonia you're dumping every day. Eventually, you'll find a balance where the amount of ammonia is stable. If you reduce your ammonia waste enough, you'll find that you can actually start to reduce the overall level of ammonia, because you've increased the level of consumption.
At some point in the future, you'll be back to a normal level, and you'll potentially be able to increase the ammonia waste, because you would otherwise be creating a deficiency.
I hope that makes sense to you - feel free to poke holes in it, but it's the general gist of it. Like losing weight - say I'm putting on a pound a day. Through proper eating and exercising, I start putting on only 12oz every day for a month. Next month it's 10oz. Then 8oz. Eventually, I'm not putting on any weight at all, and then I start losing weight. Eventually, I reach my ideal weight and I can adopt a more sustainable diet and exercise regime. But if I don't do it quickly enough, I might have a heart attack, I might get diabetes, or any number of things.
-
Actually I was just curious.
Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone?
(plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad...
)WSS
-
Actually I was just curious.
Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone?
(plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad...
)WSS
Actually I was just curious.
Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone?
(plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad...
)WSS
Kind of. It's not like the earth relies on us to produce carbon dioxide for it - after all, we contribute a tiny amount relative to nature - but we are just tipping it over the edge of what it can handle.
-
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
-
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same.
There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down.
-
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same.
There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down.
I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same.
There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down.
I can't honestly remember the level of hysterics about lead in gasoline.
I also have no idea if there are many other sources of lead in the atmosphere and what percentage was removed by eliminating it in gasoline.
WSS
-
One more thing - this planet is growing a greater human population all the time.
and mankind is destroying green space and paving and cement and building over top of it.
There. That's a major thing that partisan sniping over CO2 and lawn mowing and not enough
money and taxes....etc etc etc etc doesn't admit.
Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more
and more over time.
These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it.
Why?
No freakin money it for liberal causes. No grants to be had for it. No political advantage for votes and $$$$$$$$$$ for it.
Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more
and more over time.
These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it.
Scientists are talking about. A search of the scientific literature using Google Scholar suggests they've talked about it 20,000 times.
-
one ingredient I do remember is hexa chlorophene.
another is sodium and or calcium cyclamate.
one more might be red dye number 5.
all of which are easily lived without and who knows how much overall improvement the world has seen from the elimination.
WSS
-
-
CO2 is not lead. It is not a poison.
-
"boo hoo, Steve, Cal posts from the Blaze, whine, complain....."
Okay. This article is not from the Blaze.
Read the frickin thing, and realize that I am far more correct
on the issue than you are, Mr. "the debate is over, 97%....bs" Man.
Don't make me post the contents instead of just the link, after you complained
about that.
http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login