tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post1397922963840814368..comments2023-10-06T05:02:06.935-05:00Comments on Atheist Homeschooler: global warming: cyclical or critical???Fieryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08681456246185901798noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-71711746028756430352008-11-07T14:52:00.000-06:002008-11-07T14:52:00.000-06:00Oneandnoone, "Although I don't agree with it, I re...Oneandnoone, <BR/><BR/>"<I>Although I don't agree with it, I respect your view.</I><BR/><BR/>Respect my effort at a correct view, not the fact that I happen to have one!<BR/><BR/>Re: Chernobyl-<BR/><BR/>UNESCO conducted a thorough study of those exposed to the Chernobyl event. Cancer rates within a sixty mile radius were no different from those in the next 100 mile (to 160 mile) radius. The two-headed cow argument was a canard. Two-headed cows happen all over the world as a genetic abnormality... nothing to do with radiation from a nuclear plant.<BR/><BR/>Incredibly, the Canadian nuclear reactors are so safe, actuarially, that it would cost, not a million, but a BILLION dollars to make them safe enough to save one more life. It would only cost $10,000 to save a life on N. American roads, simply by better banking of the main route, or by adding effective barriers. It is only politically-correct-scaremongering that has a) required such absurd standards, and b) prevented nuclear energy from developing when it is actually the safest and most productive energy source, in the World.<BR/><BR/>As for disposal of left-over radiation; that same radiation came out of the ground! It was concentrated by special techiques (centrifuges etc); the concentrate was used in the reactors until it was sufficiently weak that it was no longer useful.<BR/><BR/>Upshot! There was less radiation once the ore was used, than there was before it was used. Granted, it is a rather more concentrated, but that is no issue. Bury it <I>back in the ground it came from</I>, say in mines that are sufficiently deep to not in any way reach surface well water; drop it in a tectonic subduction zone where it will be quickly buried in ocean sediments and carried to the radioactive core of the Earth. "Nuclear Waste" is a non-issue.<BR/><BR/>Did you know that the total radiation in <B>spent coal</B> matches that of the radiation in the concentrated spent-uranium from nuclear power plants?<BR/><BR/>Your understanding of the difference between socialism and communism is, perhaps innocently, terribly misguided. <BR/><BR/>"<I>There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.</I><BR/>“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,” Los Angeles Times, Ayn Rand. Sept. 9, 1962..<BR/><BR/>There is no more justification for taxing the honest wealthy, than there is for taxing the poor. Both <B>worked</B> to produce their wealth. What the hell gives anyone, or any group, the right to take a citizen's personal effort (wealth) from them ...or from you?? Nothing.<BR/><BR/>Your AIM suggestion produced nothing, not even a profile. Besides, I am staying here.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-18373208991287706692008-11-07T12:02:00.000-06:002008-11-07T12:02:00.000-06:00Richard, very nice job on your argument. Although ...Richard, very nice job on your argument. Although I don't agree with it, I respect your view. I do have a few issues I'd like to clear up with you though. A: Nuclear energy isn't the safest energy source, but it is clean, I shall give you that. If you want me to back up this claim, just look at the Chernobyl incident. If we could find a way to make Nuclear energy safer, and find a safe way to dispose of the used energy source, then I could say that it is the safest and cleanest energy source.<BR/>B: Socialism isn't communism, just putting that out there. It angers me every time I hear/see someone saying that they're one and the same. Socialism is a government type in which the government runs a lot of programs using tax money, and taxing the wealthy, instead of giving them tax breaks because they can pay their bills and taxing the lower classes to compensate. Communism is when there is a small group of individuals who control most of the country's wealth while the others are forced to work.<BR/><BR/>If you want to continue the discussion on either of these, or anything mentioned in your post, hit me up on oneandnoone (AIM) or atheistrockstar (AIM).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-46626314057226954472008-02-23T11:26:00.000-06:002008-02-23T11:26:00.000-06:00Jason, your third paragraph, about water vapor com...Jason, your third paragraph, about water vapor commits the Fallacy of Begging the Question. It presumes all global warming in the recent period is caused by CO2 from mankind, and simply rejects all the other known factors. In other words, it asks (begs) your opponent to accept your AGW premise (the 'question' at stake) and moves straight on to asking your opponent to accept other statements that do nothing to support the initial premise. <BR/><BR/>As for me lying... nowhere did I say water vapor concentration had changed (actually cosmic radiation does change cloud cover, which affects Earth's albedo). I did say it was the predominant greenhouse gas, on such a scale that human influence on the greenhouse effect is negligible. Thus you have screwed up reading, thinking and responding on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Computer models are not science, or even 'scientific'. They are **models** of what the model designers think... that is, they represent the existing beliefs of the modelers, because of the facts they choose to use. They do not use cosmic radiation, use not to use cloud cover at all, disregarded sunspot activity etc. They cannot backwards predict weather for the Globe --coming up with such wonders as a Saharan climate for the Southern U.K.! Garbage in - garbage out.<BR/><BR/>The warming period 1,000 years ago certainly does have relevance to the claim that the permafrost is going to cause a positive feedback that will greatly increase the rate of global warming. That feedback did not occur then, why should it occur now? To simply dismiss it as irrelevant is precisely the kind of unreason that allows all of this nonsense to spread to millions of people.<BR/><BR/>Once again, you have screwed up reading, thinking and responding on the subject. I think you knew that was what I said, but have not been able to maintain the train of thought involved. <BR/><BR/>Regulars at this blog might like to contrast Jason with a teenager, who <B>can</B> think and write effectively, and does so at his blog: <A HREF="http://samnitegladiator.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">Samnite Gladiator</A>. He tends to post on political issues, but does have a post on <A HREF="http://samnitegladiator.wordpress.com/category/global-warmning/" REL="nofollow">Global Warming</A> as the overblown issue it is (Part 1 starts beneath Part 2). He also has good comments on Torture, reads and discusses adult material on events such as those Bosnia, or the Muslim Jihad. He is not a waste of skin.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-5613366723853055242008-02-22T20:51:00.000-06:002008-02-22T20:51:00.000-06:00Wait one minute, Richard. Before you claim that t...Wait one minute, Richard. Before you claim that the rise in temperature over the last thirty years is trivial, consider this. It takes a massive input of energy to raise the temperature of the earth even one degree Celsius. It's almost unfathomable that humans could be able to do such a thing. And yet we have.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-82059701975870496012008-02-22T20:15:00.000-06:002008-02-22T20:15:00.000-06:00Fiery recently informed me that the general public...Fiery recently informed me that the general public rarely views this site. For this reason, I no longer feel obligated to continue writing. This response should do. <BR/><BR/>Of all Richard's comments on this site, only one made me question whether my argument might be in jeopardy. After a little research, however, I have discovered that this comment was an outright lie, or, as Richard might say, intellectual dishonesty. <BR/><BR/>Richard claims that water vapor is responsible for global warming, that carbon dioxide is insignificant. Here's why he is wrong:<BR/><BR/>Since the 1970's, despite an abundance of aerosols, sulfates, and other chemicals in the atmosphere that block sunlight, global temperatures have been on the rise. Why? It is because of an increase in the greenhouse effect. But water vapor is responsible for the greenhouse effect, right?, and water vapor levels in the atmosphere have remained stable. How can the planet be warming if water vapor isn't responsible? Obviously, it is true that water vapor levels haven't changed much in the last thirty years. As far as their effect on global warming, the claim that they are affecting the temperature of the earth more than any other gas is COMPLETELY FALSE. Since the 1970's, the only greenhouse gas that has seen a significant increase is carbon dioxide, an increase that is mainly attributed to human activity. It is, without a doubt, the main culprit behind the warming that has taken place in the last thirty years. <BR/><BR/>But what about the medieval warming period? Richard said that the high temperatures in that time period were caused by natural variations, and they were. But that is completely irrelevant to the current rise in temperature. Modern computer models have taken into account all of the natural causes mentioned by Richard earlier, and, when human activity was neglected, their data showed that the small warming during the 1930's--attributed to an influx in solar radiation--should have been followed by a period of cooling. But why wasn't it, Richard? Did the models fail to take into account some unknown factor, one of which only you are aware? I think not. If it weren't for the enhanced greenhouse effect, our planet's temperature would be on the decline. But, as it is, we have produced enough carbon dioxide to effectively alter the earth's climate. <BR/><BR/>How do you explain that, Richard? We know that human activity since the industrial revolution has increased carbon dioxide levels by nearly thirty five percent. Based on the above information, it is also clear that carbon dioxide IS affecting our climate in a big way, a big enough way even to counter the natural factors that should be sending the earth into a period of cooling. What can we conclude from all this? HUMANS ARE MOST DEFINITELY ALTERING THE EARTH'S CLIMATE. <BR/><BR/>Hide behind irrelevant facts and your own assumptions if you want, Richard, but I know one thing: just because Richard says that carbon dioxide doesn't matter does not mean that that statement is true; just because Richard hopes that carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming does not mean that it isn't. Keep spreading lies, Richard, but know this. Being stubborn for the sake of making mischief isn't progressive at all. You complain about those who you think are jealous of humanity's successes. If you want us to keep moving forward, then try to get in touch with reality. Everything you have said has included a hint of fact with a whole lot of manipulation and even more assumption (that is, everything about human-induced global warming). There's no denying it, Richard. We are causing the earth's temperature to rise (at an unnaturally high rate), and the only way this will stop is if those who share your opinions come to terms with reason.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-47168006590738714142008-02-22T20:14:00.000-06:002008-02-22T20:14:00.000-06:00If anyone decides to read anything that I've writt...If anyone decides to read anything that I've written, let it be this...Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-488657609938329212008-02-22T09:54:00.000-06:002008-02-22T09:54:00.000-06:00Oh... I just noticed that I missed bolding "resear...Oh... I just noticed that I missed bolding "<B>researchers warn</B> as part of emphasizing the journalistic, environmentalist, scaremongering. We could even bold "trigger", which brings up the death by gunshot mindset.<BR/><BR/>Half that sentence is unmitigated, alarmist BS! It tells us how to feel, and then the article supports only the feel, with a few factoids on methane.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-64144772765472580322008-02-22T09:29:00.000-06:002008-02-22T09:29:00.000-06:00I have no idea what Jason is on about, concerning ...I have no idea what Jason is on about, concerning conspiracy theories and tabloids. I made it clear I was talking about mainstream media, academics etc. I think it is also clear that I am not speaking of conspiracy so much as widespread unreason.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-71003132617121180652008-02-22T09:28:00.000-06:002008-02-22T09:28:00.000-06:00Trevor, CO2 and temperature changes can be tracked...Trevor, CO2 and temperature changes can be tracked back for millions of years. <BR/><BR/>The data repeatedly shows that CO2 <B>follows</B> temperature. That is, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, and temperature decline precedes CO2 decline. <BR/><BR/>If CO2 were a causal agent for global temperature increases, temperature would have to follow CO2, but it does not. <BR/><BR/>Al Gore's graph was charted so that the lag between temp and CO2 was not visible. The layout emphasized vertical shifts, downplaying horizontal relationships. The horizontal scale crowded many years together further masking horizontal relationships.<BR/><BR/>If anything, warming does cause an increase in CO2, but CO2 does not cause significant warming beyond that produced by the usual combined effects of the atmospheric 'greenhouse' gases.<BR/><BR/>No doubt worldwide decay (as per the permafrost argument) increases when things warm up and produces more CO2. Does it cause further warming on a scale that really matters? It is pretty clear that it does not.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-73136013214580214532008-02-22T09:15:00.000-06:002008-02-22T09:15:00.000-06:00The new perma-frost claims only serve enviro-froze...The new perma-frost claims only serve enviro-frozen brains.<BR/><BR/>Consider the opening sentence of <A HREF="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/07/climate_time_bomb_forecast/" REL="nofollow">this article</A>:<BR/>"<I>Global warming gases trapped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts <B>far higher than previously thought</B> and <B>may</B> trigger what researchers warn is a climate <B>time bomb</B></I>." I emphasized the usual scaremongering and 'maybe' terms that irresponsible writers use, and that abound in environmentalist literature. They have to use such terms to maintain the semblance of credibility, but then suggest their conclusions of catastrophe are absolute truth. THAT is intellectual dishonesty, big time.<BR/><BR/>The article goes on to say, "<I>Warming already underway thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years.</I>"<BR/><BR/>This is a flat out lie, quietly overlooked by journalists and Global Warmers alike. About 1,000 years ago the Earth was dramatically warmer than it is today. Greenland really was green along its shores and in its valleys, as the Vikings discovered. Scotland had vineyards, no less. It's climate was like that of Southern France!<BR/><BR/>Scotland is on the same latitude as Hudson's Bay and the Alaskan 'Panhandle'. Scotland's northernmost islands are on the same latitude as the southernmost tip of Greenland.<BR/><BR/>Do these nitwits think the permafrost didn't thaw back then? Did the Polar Bears drown? Did the Earth turn into a dust-bowl? Do they think the glaciers were not melting? Where are the records of coastal cities drowning in 20 meters of water from rising ocean levels? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps, because they can't prove that warm spell was 'man-made', the Environmentalists don't want us to notice it. <BR/><BR/>Now however, if the Environmentalists can prove this warm spell is man-made, they will have an argument for us all to kill ourselves, or neuter ourselves like that idiot couple in the U.K.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-33303472697837588982008-02-22T09:14:00.000-06:002008-02-22T09:14:00.000-06:00Jason's Permafrost argument, and Trevor's question...Jason's Permafrost argument, and Trevor's question about Al Goron's CO2 & temperature correlation graph, exemplify environmentalism's fraudulent rationalizations.<BR/><BR/>A rationalization is a seemingly logical argument that ultimately leads to a faulty conclusion. <BR/><BR/>Rationalizations are arguments built by misuse or ignorance of context, of concepts, and of scattered facts. They can occur in error, but when information is used in a selective manner to ensure the conclusion <B>desired</B>, they become intellectual depravity.<BR/><BR/>When confronted by a person who grabs at scattered facts to support a conclusion, one can eventually see that the conclusion is what they most want to protect, <I>regardless of truth</I>. The recent scaremongering about thawing permafrost (see next comment) is just another example of environmentalists' rationalizing, to justify their desire to knock Mankind off its 'pedestal'.<BR/><BR/>Many people mistakenly believe the AGW theory because they trust the scientists and writers behind it, and the simple arguments make it all seem plausible. Others, <I>want to believe it</I> because they dislike big business, the rich, the powerful (individuals or nations). They don't dislike the big, rich and powerful because of the few that have done bad things, they dislike them <B>because</B> they are big, rich and powerful.<BR/><BR/>This is a function of the World's dominant moral view: altruism. Altruism holds up the poor, the damned, and the broken as those who truly deserve our love, care and effort. Its religious form presumes evil lurks in everyone from birth, by nature. By altruism, the bigger, the richer, the more powerful, and the more successful are not just undeserving, they are evil. Their destruction is seen as a good thing.<BR/><BR/>So it is with the eager, activist Environmentalists. Their target for destruction is Mankind, <B>because</B> Mankind is so successful. <BR/>* All living things use energy. Humans use the most. Environmentalists seek to show the 'environmental harm' of any major source of energy used by humans.. <BR/>* All living things need food. Humans produce the most per individual. Environmentalists seek to show the 'environmental harm' of human food production. <BR/>* All living things produce harmful waste chemicals. Humans produce waste chemicals in great variety. Environmentalists seek to show the 'environmental harm' of any human waste chemical. <BR/>* All living things, as a species, procreate. Environmentalists seek show the 'environmental harm' of human procreation.<BR/><BR/>Serious environmentalists <I>need</I> climate change to be man-made, so they can use that fact to... knock Mankind off its 'pedestal'. <BR/><BR/>There is enough money in the movement for them to buy millions of hectares of land to build nature reserves, and to do a host of other pro-environment things.<BR/><BR/>Yet, where do they direct their efforts? ...towards legislation against our lifestyle, towards demonstrations and conferences against business and the free nations. They object to capitalist pollution, but could care less about the more severe communist pollution. They do not work <B>for</B> Nature, they <B>use</B> nature to work against Mankind.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-63571669499648140482008-02-21T20:40:00.000-06:002008-02-21T20:40:00.000-06:00Jason said, Also, please try not to curse in your ...Jason said, <I>Also, please try not to curse in your comments, Johnny. Anyone can access this site, and I would hate to see a person stop reading because of profanity. </I><BR/><BR/>Interesting.<BR/><BR/>Note how with just two sentences Jason reveals that he has read nothing else on this blog, knows nothing of the commenters here, and has no idea what I, Fiery, creator of this blog, have established for acceptable behavior by my guests. <BR/><BR/>I know there is a lot of past material to look through. And without a guide as to where to start, many just skip over it. Here are a few posts that will bring you up to speed on my blog and the wonderful community that we have here.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2007/10/curses.html" REL="nofollow">post 1</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2007/08/fuck-politics-and-fuck-all-fucking.html" REL="nofollow">post 2</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2007/07/meet-underminer.html" REL="nofollow">post 3</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2008/02/fuck-politics-and-fuck-all-fucking.html" REL="nofollow">post 4</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2008/02/redirect-4.html" REL="nofollow">post 5</A><BR/><BR/>As to this being a public forum. <BR/>Not really. It's more like a private meeting taking place at a hotel conference room with the hallway door open. Sometimes passers-by poke their heads in, but for the most part, everyone who comments here followed me back from their blog where I commented initially.<BR/><BR/>And if a little bit of cursing... or a lot of cursing... or a shocking amount of creative cursing is enough to get a person's knickers in a twist, they should leave the GoogleSafeSearch maximum protection feature on by default.Fieryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08681456246185901798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-59620908852863775782008-02-21T19:55:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:55:00.000-06:00Richard-I hate to admitt it, but I did see "An Inc...Richard-<BR/>I hate to admitt it, but I did see "An Inconvenient Truth." In the movie, Gore made it seem as though the enhanced greenhouse effect was increasing CO2 levels at a pretty high rate, and his graph did show a really close relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. I don't think he made up his data, but now I'm not sure who to believe. Don't worry about answering (unless you want to do so). I think I'm done with this for now.Trevorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123844055897970641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-79935949956576328052008-02-21T19:42:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:42:00.000-06:00Maybe I should quit posting if I can't even do it ...Maybe I should quit posting if I can't even do it right. If anyone is confused, the comment that was posted directly after Richard's was meant to be read after the comment that starts with "m" instead of "I'M."Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-61615025013229504092008-02-21T19:37:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:37:00.000-06:00m glad that Johnny finally decided to include some...m glad that Johnny finally decided to include some facts about global warming in his writing. Carbon dioxide levels really do lag behind changes in temperature. Johnny is mistaken, however, if he believes that his information supports Richard's theory of "correlation without causation." Here's what is actually happening:<BR/><BR/>As carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation in our atmosphere, the temperature begins to rise. When the temperature rises, permafrost in the previously cooler regions of the world begins to melt. This releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere, making it seem as though increasing levels of carbon dioxide can be accredited to natural rises in temperature. In reality, it is the original increase in CO2 that begins the cycle. <BR/><BR/>As a former biology teacher, Richard can back me up on this (that is, he can back me up as long as he is able to get over all of my horrible, dishonest hypocrisy). <BR/><BR/>Also, please try not to curse in your comments, Johnny. Anyone can access this site, and I would hate to see a person stop reading because of profanity. <BR/><BR/>This is for Richard: I may be wrong, but I think what you are trying to say is that sensationalized journalism is responsible for the "exaggerations" concerning global warming. Take a look at the tabloids to find the fallacy in this hypothesis. A conspiracy theory sells a magazine just as well as a dooms-day prophecy, and not too many essayists are favoring the "global warming is a hoax" strategy for getting their work published. Maybe the editors don't think that people would be interested in one of the biggest conspiracies of all time, so they just aren't printing these essays. Or, maybe there are a few good men in the world who genuinely care about spreading the truth. Whichever it is, I appreciate the thought that not all people are concerned with factual information regarding global warming.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-71816470702832682282008-02-21T19:36:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:36:00.000-06:00Let me apologize. My original comment concerning ...Let me apologize. My original comment concerning this post wasn't published as I thought it was.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-44004868960918239422008-02-21T19:32:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:32:00.000-06:00I forgot one thing. Just in case anyone tries to ...I forgot one thing. Just in case anyone tries to claim that the melting of permafrost doesn't account for the large increase in CO2 (even though it does), it should also be pointed out that higher temperatures increase the frequency and severity of forest fires. Complete combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, furthering the cycle of rising temperatures caused by increases in carbon dioxide levels.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-19840193277105208372008-02-21T19:23:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:23:00.000-06:00Hi Trevor,Unless 'Jason' has finally organized his...Hi Trevor,<BR/>Unless 'Jason' has finally organized his 'poop', your question is awesome. If you <I>are</I> Jason, then come clean, because you are still being dishonest by using two names for one 'angle' at this site.<BR/><BR/>I hope Johnny will answer in his own right. (I absolutely love that... "<I>In his own right</I>"... It says everything about the unique and sovereign individual that is "Johnny"!)<BR/><BR/>You asked,<BR/>"<I>Carbon dioxide plays a large role in the enhanced greenhouse effect, the one for which humans are responsible. Doesn't that mean we truly are affecting the climate? Or, is the enhanced Greenhouse Effect really not that important?</I><BR/><BR/>Trevor, CO2 does NOT play as big a role as water vapor. CO2 is certainly produced by humans (and almost every other organism that lives after DARK), but the quantities are so very small when judged in relation to the<BR/>atmospheric, politically correct, Global Warming viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>Bottom Line: the impact of Human Industrial Activity is shockingly trivial compared to what the Global Warmers claim.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-82466426547149847732008-02-21T15:13:00.000-06:002008-02-21T15:13:00.000-06:00Johnny-I don't care to know how you feel about me....Johnny-<BR/>I don't care to know how you feel about me. I am interested in your answers, though. Here's what I've gathered from them, but please tell me if I'm wrong. Carbon dioxide plays a large role in the enhanced greenhouse effect, the one for which humans are responsible. Doesn't that mean we truly are affecting the climate? Or is the enhanced greenhouse effect really not that important?Trevorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123844055897970641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-34680719151416205252008-02-21T11:51:00.000-06:002008-02-21T11:51:00.000-06:00Trevor, Fiery pointed out that I had not responded...Trevor, Fiery pointed out that I had not responded to your question of <A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2007/12/global-warming-cyclical-or-critical.html#c5563437831867776979" REL="nofollow">February 19, 2008 6:32 PM</A>.<BR/><BR/>In fact I have. The particular comment was posted on <A HREF="http://godlessmomathome.blogspot.com/2007/12/global-warming-cyclical-or-critical.html#c2586009762128167997" REL="nofollow">December 9, 2007 9:40 AM</A> This kind of information, refuting the unjustified conclusions drawn by non-scientific (i.e. irrational) thinking, is readily available. Indeed, that information was from no less common a source than Answers.com!! <BR/><BR/>Sadly, because truth is sacrificed for their dollar, such information is not presented by most media sources. The media are not about selling news, but about selling advertisements, period. Quite literally, "No news is good news", because good news rarely lines anyone's pockets. Nothing like a good "sky-is-falling" story to get the average man's attention. <BR/><BR/>Ironically, Jason needs his to heed his own advice "to check the motivations of their sources", more than most anyone on this blog.<BR/><BR/>I have also commented on global warming elsewhere here. There are many very reputable sources, with such cogent facts and logical conclusions, that scientists are now <A HREF="http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1" REL="nofollow"><B>ABANDONING</B> the IPCC</A>!!<BR/><BR/>I do not mean this as a snub, but I really should not be spending time researching more facts on this issue just because someone asks. That should be their job & I am quite buried in related information already. That said, if someone comes up with truly new and apparently meaningful information or arguments, one might find me going to that source and figuring out what it really means.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-41726967907046197202008-02-21T09:34:00.000-06:002008-02-21T09:34:00.000-06:00Jason thanks for the confirmation! After a stagger...Jason thanks for the confirmation! <BR/><BR/><I>After a staggering argument like Johnny's, I'm not sure if it's even possible for me to come back. His comment proves it; global warming is definitely a scare tactic.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Way to put words into my mouth!! More assumptions as well I see, what makes you so sure I am a global warming skeptic? Paranoid? The point is jason that Richard's arguments are far, far more convincing than yours it doesn't make him right but it makes you look like a smug fool.<BR/>Could you kindly point out where my arguments about global warming are? I didn't think I had made any, any at all!! In fact I made no argument whatsoever about anything and <I>you</I> have the gall to talk about being able to read properly shit jason that really makes me chuckle. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My point (allbeit made in a smartarse way mainly because, jason between you and me, the way you blasted on here was as rude as all fuck. Making all sorts of wild assumptions about people you don't even know. And as for the very first bit that starts with the oh so christian...just a thought.....followed by a snide backhand comment about a god without tyranny and a oh but I'm not here to talk about that....don't fucking say it then dick!! I must say however that Fiery deals with that one beautifully :-)) is that you blatantly contradict yourself by not only saying but <I>promising</I> it would be you're last. Unbelievably you think it is ok to contradict yourself so much so you "put it on the record" that you are not ashamed to do so! Dude read what Richard said about being a hypocrite. You are not going to convince many by being one.<BR/><BR/><I>I think what you are hoping for is a contradiction IN my writing, and one that isn't just seemingly so because of a failure to read properly.</I> <BR/><BR/>Jason I am not hoping for <I>anything</I> from you except for a little intellectual honesty if you are going to jump on here and give someone a spray it is very trollish!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>All he did was poke fun at Jason's eagerness to respond</I><BR/><BR/>Trevor I am not opposed at all in someones genuine eagerness at discussing or outright arguing points but he was the one typing so why on earth did he even find it necessary to write promising it would be his last post. All it does is make me question the veracity of any of his other comments. Or did he accidently type that? <BR/><BR/><I>and Richard's ability to supply some facts.</I><BR/><BR/>Can't quite see where I said anything about Richard's facts, unless you are refering to me saying jason did not back up his "closing statement" but unwittingly Trevor you are right I want facts,which Richard provides doesn't he? (well at any rate figures that I can look up to see if they are facts) not hyperbole. Oh hang on jason does provide one accurate fact CO2 has risen about 35% since the 18th century after he asserts this nowhere does he provide anything that shows if there really is a correlation between CO2 levels and warming he just says that as "an American people" you know that there is! By making it sound like it is an obvious fact whithout showing us how, he does himself and us a disservice. In fact, Jason, you might find that according to Gore's ice core data CO2 increase lags by 800-1000 years behind temperature increase try <A HREF="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/correlaEng.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I wonder if you can find anywhere where this is answered or explained? You seem to be more interested in besmirching Richard's character.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As far as judging me Trevor I don't really give a shit how you judge me until I see that you are not a troll yourself, for all I know you could be jason playing us off by being the "trolls advocate" it does seem suss that there has been nothing on this thread for ages then all of a sudden there are not one but two dudes who have mysteriously shown up at the same time with newly made blogger accounts?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Finally <BR/><I>Johnny didn't even answer my question.</I><BR/>Are you serious???? Lets have another look<BR/>You asked...<BR/><I> I googled some stuff about global warming and read something like carbon dioxide accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect. Is that true?</I><BR/><BR/>I responded....<BR/><I>Trevor H2O is by far and away the most abundant GH gas making up about 60% of the greenhouse gases .....I think CO2 is more like 25%</I> As I say this was from memory from high school, I wonder if Richard has other figures.<BR/>Not withstanding the fact that if Water makes up 60% of the gases in the greenhouse effect then CO2 cannot be the same as we would have 120% of a maximum 100% without even considering other gasses like O3, N2O and CH4, but I also put in a figure for CO2. The BBC website was most likely talking about the "enhanced greenhouse effect". Which is where a lot of the contention raised by skeptics is about, the Earth has a normal greenhouse effect which makes it inhabitable. There are lots and lots of scientific sites that will give you all the answers you seek.<BR/><BR/>As for the second part of your question I genuinely thought it was rhetorical but if you need an answer....if there are billions of tonnes of co2 in the atmosphere and it has increased by 35% then there will be 35% more CO2. Surely you can find the actual figure and work it out! You can find out what happens to CO2 if you google "the carbon cycle"Johnnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634246540164233622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-62547154850071133912008-02-20T18:11:00.000-06:002008-02-20T18:11:00.000-06:00Jason and Trevor,Welcome to my blog! Normally I a...Jason and Trevor,<BR/><BR/>Welcome to my blog! Normally I am quicker to say a word of welcome to new people and less quick to condemn or criticize a new person. My...prejudice... is the newness of your profiles. You are either new to the blogging world or have created new personae for the purpose of posting on my blog. Which... is approximately 10 degrees short of disconcerting.<BR/><BR/>However, since you've both posted multiple times.... welcome! I hope you both will look around and comment on other posts that catch your fancy.<BR/><BR/>Trevor, I'm sorry I don't have the answer to your questions. All I could do is google the info. you seek and I won't insult you by copy/pasting instead of personalizing the info.<BR/><BR/>Jason, as a way of providing context for Johnny taking the piss and tick, tick, ticking you... We have had several people in the past start arguments, have several exchanges, get frustrated and then say "I'm not coming back". The funny part is watching them being unable to keep away and post several more times after making that claim.<BR/><BR/>No one is holding you (or them for that matter) to it, it's just funny when it happens. At least you had something manly to say when you came back!!! *snerk* :DFieryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08681456246185901798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-84244712648440234802008-02-20T18:05:00.000-06:002008-02-20T18:05:00.000-06:00Trevor, by "quietly" I just mean a lot less bombas...Trevor, by "quietly" I just mean a lot less bombast an insult, and a bit more questioning and reasoning. of course a good dose of humor might really help, but I'm generally not well disposed to that myself.<BR/><BR/>Jason, apparently you didn't recognize that Johnny's "argument" was not about global warming. It was about the irrational & self-contradictory statements you may as to whether or not you're going to make more comment on this blog. <BR/><BR/>Trevor the above is what I meant by Jason being more quiet. All he is going to invite is ridicule, which he has already shown he deserves.<BR/><BR/>Consider, Jason says, <I>I find no shame in contradicting myself</I>. <BR/><BR/>A contradiction is that which is and which isn't at the same time. A is not A. E.g. Jason opposes global warming and the raping of small children, and supports global warming and the raping of small children, at the same time. He finds no shame in that.<BR/><BR/>A person who has no shame in contradicting himself is a hypocrite by definition. A hypocrite is necessarily dishonest, because he wants his cake and eat it too. <BR/><BR/>A criminal seeks to pretend unearned wealth is some matter of pride for him. Yet in not earning it, he has done neither the thought nor the work that created it. For him to say the wealth is his, is a contradiction. <BR/><BR/>Contradictions in a man's thinking and speaking are the hallmark of confusion. Contradictions <I>promoted</I> are the hallmark of a dishonest mind. It seeks to promote the unreal as real. If stealing material goods a crime, promoting contradictory ideas is intellectual equivalent.<BR/><BR/>Jason, your comment was not truthful, because it was feelings spilled with little attention to, or deliberate evasion of, the issue that was their source: Johnny's observation of your wavering integrity. That is your words/ideas and actions were contradictory. That is not Manly, though it seems to be acceptable in a lot of classrooms these days.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-88846610360331660502008-02-20T15:32:00.000-06:002008-02-20T15:32:00.000-06:00After a staggering argument like Johnny's, I'm not...After a staggering argument like Johnny's, I'm not sure if it's even possible for me to come back. His comment proves it; global warming is definitely a scare tactic. <BR/><BR/>For the record, Johhny, I find no shame in contradicting myself because of my writing. If there's something that needs to be said and no one else is willing to say it, then I will be the one to do so. I think what you are hoping for is a contradiction IN my writing, and one that isn't just seemingly so because of a failure to read properly. <BR/><BR/>For Richard: I hope that comment was both truthful and mannly enough for your liking.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747682435204708895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-583239250485118416.post-75153584001243013132008-02-20T15:04:00.000-06:002008-02-20T15:04:00.000-06:00I'm not sure that he has anything else to say.I'm not sure that he has anything else to say.Trevorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123844055897970641noreply@blogger.com