RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/5/2010 1:19:52 PM)
That's your interpretation of what I said in the OP, Ken. Plenty of illegitimate, "sky is falling," claims have been made about the immediate impacts of climate change. You cite the numbers yourself, but you still are blind to the damage the cult of AGW has done to any real science going on there. And yes, Ken, that does mean that numbers which are deliberately hidden from calculations , conspiracy to conceal raw data, and even the discussion of redefining peer review to include only the heterodox, makes the whole project suspect. You somehow missed all that stuff when you declared the Climategate emails meaningless. Tell you what I'm going to do, Ken. I'll give you your own little modification of the question. How long do you think it will take for legitimate environmental concerns, including the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases, to be treated with any credibility again? Think you can find the topic now?

DomKen -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/5/2010 2:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic That's your interpretation of what I said in the OP, Ken. Plenty of illegitimate, "sky is falling," claims have been made about the immediate impacts of climate change. You cite the numbers yourself, but you still are blind to the damage the cult of AGW has done to any real science going on there. And yes, Ken, that does mean that numbers which are deliberately hidden from calculations , conspiracy to conceal raw data, and even the discussion of redefining peer review to include only the heterodox, makes the whole project suspect. You somehow missed all that stuff when you declared the Climategate emails meaningless. Do you know how many different independent groups have looked into those emails and all have found nothing? You might start with the British parliament report it is quite complete. The fact that you continue to act like its all settled and the scientists were commiting fraud is indicative that you truly have your mind made up and puts the lie to your claim of skeptical inquiry. quote: Tell you what I'm going to do, Ken. I'll give you your own little modification of the question. How long do you think it will take for legitimate environmental concerns, including the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases, to be treated with any credibility again? Think you can find the topic now? The answer to your revised question is zero. The concerns of environmentaliats are being taken seriously right now.

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/5/2010 3:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The answer to your revised question is zero. The concerns of environmentaliats are being taken seriously right now. And yet you call me a denier, Ken [sm=rofl.gif] Did the see the Rube Goldberg club is attending Cancun? The mad scientists getting the mike is always a sign of strong, mainstream support. As climate negotiators grew more discouraged in recent months, U.S. and British government bodies urged stepped-up studies of such "geoengineering." The U.N. climate science network decided to assess the options. And a range of new research moved ahead in America and elsewhere. "The taboo is broken," Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric scientist, told The Associated Press. Schemes were floated for using aircraft, balloons or big guns to spread sulfate particles in the lower stratosphere to reflect sunlight, easing the warming scientists say is being caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry, vehicles and agriculture. Others suggested assembling gargantuan mirrors in orbit to fend off the solar radiation. Still others propose — and a German experiment tried — seeding the ocean with iron, a nutrient that would spur the spread of plankton, which absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide. Sky, sea and land — the ideas vary, from spraying ocean clouds with sea salt to make them brighter and more reflective; to planting vast arid lands with agave, the "tequila plant," which stores carbon for years and grows where climate-friendly forests can't; to developing the chemistry and machines to suck in CO2 from the air and store it. Specialists regard the stratospheric sulfates proposal as among the most feasible. The U.S. government's National Center for Atmospheric Research has undertaken computer modeling to assess its effect, for one thing, on the protective ozone layer. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101204/ap_on_sc/climate_broken_taboo Have yourself a great night, Ken. I have a better offer.

Aneirin -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/5/2010 8:00:32 PM)
If global warming or climate change is happening, why not just adapt to it ? And whilst adapting does anyone not think the world should be thinking about birth control, i.e. do something about the ever increasing world population, as it might just be that is what nature is doing when it wreaks havoc on people, you know, those unforeseen natural disasters. “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. ~ Sir David Attenborough

DomKen -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/6/2010 10:28:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The answer to your revised question is zero. The concerns of environmentaliats are being taken seriously right now. And yet you call me a denier, Ken [sm=rofl.gif] Did the see the Rube Goldberg club is attending Cancun? The mad scientists getting the mike is always a sign of strong, mainstream support. As climate negotiators grew more discouraged in recent months, U.S. and British government bodies urged stepped-up studies of such "geoengineering." The U.N. climate science network decided to assess the options. And a range of new research moved ahead in America and elsewhere. "The taboo is broken," Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric scientist, told The Associated Press. Schemes were floated for using aircraft, balloons or big guns to spread sulfate particles in the lower stratosphere to reflect sunlight, easing the warming scientists say is being caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry, vehicles and agriculture. Others suggested assembling gargantuan mirrors in orbit to fend off the solar radiation. Still others propose — and a German experiment tried — seeding the ocean with iron, a nutrient that would spur the spread of plankton, which absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide. Sky, sea and land — the ideas vary, from spraying ocean clouds with sea salt to make them brighter and more reflective; to planting vast arid lands with agave, the "tequila plant," which stores carbon for years and grows where climate-friendly forests can't; to developing the chemistry and machines to suck in CO2 from the air and store it. Specialists regard the stratospheric sulfates proposal as among the most feasible. The U.S. government's National Center for Atmospheric Research has undertaken computer modeling to assess its effect, for one thing, on the protective ozone layer. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101204/ap_on_sc/climate_broken_taboo Have yourself a great night, Ken. I have a better offer. I'm confused, you seem to be claiming no one is taking these scientists seriously but according to your own post Germany is funding one experiment and the NOAA, part of out federal government, has run simulations on another proposal. Seems like people are taking this very seriously.

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/6/2010 9:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm confused, you seem to be claiming no one is taking these scientists seriously but according to your own post Germany is funding one experiment and the NOAA, part of out federal government, has run simulations on another proposal. Seems like people are taking this very seriously. And you believe these uses of government funding will stem the tide of public opinion? We're done here, Ken.

DomKen -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/7/2010 5:54:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm confused, you seem to be claiming no one is taking these scientists seriously but according to your own post Germany is funding one experiment and the NOAA, part of out federal government, has run simulations on another proposal. Seems like people are taking this very seriously. And you believe these uses of government funding will stem the tide of public opinion? We're done here, Ken. Ah so you, as usual, weren't actually interested in discussion but in spreading propoganda. How utterly unsurprising.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/7/2010 7:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'm sure you'd be thrilled to change the terms of the discussion, Ken, but unless you are going to get on the page of talking about the damage you guys did to the rest of the environmental movement, I see no point in duplicating previous conversations where you just called me names, rather than addressing the history of climate on the planet. You also haven't left a good impression with your history of posting links, and hoping nobody will check when you tell stupid lies about what they say. WTF the are trying to claim? You've never done anything but make easily refuted claims and then run away when actual facts were presented. You seem to have missed the fact that all those stolen emails and documents were investigated by several different governments and in dependent groups and they were found to not contain anything to cast doubt on the facts behind AGW. This from someone who actually posted "If you dont think that CO2 is a pollutant try living in a 100% CO2 environment". TheHeretic is dead on, long ago you destroyed the credibility of any position you tried to take with your weak logic and evasiveness when proven wrong again and again.

DomKen -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/7/2010 9:45:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'm sure you'd be thrilled to change the terms of the discussion, Ken, but unless you are going to get on the page of talking about the damage you guys did to the rest of the environmental movement, I see no point in duplicating previous conversations where you just called me names, rather than addressing the history of climate on the planet. You also haven't left a good impression with your history of posting links, and hoping nobody will check when you tell stupid lies about what they say. WTF the are trying to claim? You've never done anything but make easily refuted claims and then run away when actual facts were presented. You seem to have missed the fact that all those stolen emails and documents were investigated by several different governments and in dependent groups and they were found to not contain anything to cast doubt on the facts behind AGW. This from someone who actually posted "If you dont think that CO2 is a pollutant try living in a 100% CO2 environment". TheHeretic is dead on, long ago you destroyed the credibility of any position you tried to take with your weak logic and evasiveness when proven wrong again and again. http://www.collarchat.com/m_3424025/mpage_3/key_CO2%252Cpollutant/tm.htm#3424824 How come what I actually wrote is different from what you claimed I wrote?

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/7/2010 6:19:06 PM)
It's a pretty damn close paraphrase, Ken. Since such an environment couldn't be survived in much longer than an individual could hold their breath anyway, the meaning of the statement was not changed in the slightest. Of course, you were hoping people would assume a blatant lie, and not check your link, weren't you?

mnottertail -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/8/2010 6:55:45 AM)
Except that such as it is, 100% oxygen is generally bad, and only occasionally fatal. 100% CO2 is unexceptionally fatal. So...........

DomKen -> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet (12/8/2010 10:27:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic It's a pretty damn close paraphrase, Ken. Since such an environment couldn't be survived in much longer than an individual could hold their breath anyway, the meaning of the statement was not changed in the slightest. Of course, you were hoping people would assume a blatant lie, and not check your link, weren't you? I provided the link so people could verify . The fact that he paraphrased what I wrote but chose to wrap it in quotes, thereby claiming it was an actual quotation, was what I wanted to point out. It's basic usual conservative dishonesty.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875