Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1493428 - Posted: 22 Mar 2014, 16:47:59 UTC - in response to Message 1492917.  

Hardly what I asked now was it? I have pointed back some 85 million years.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1493428 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1493430 - Posted: 22 Mar 2014, 16:48:28 UTC - in response to Message 1493305.  

Back at ya later...
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1493430 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24849
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1493959 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 10:56:36 UTC

Nope, we're not to blame. It's god's revenge for us raping the planet....

So says Russell Crowe
ID: 1493959 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494032 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 15:31:26 UTC - in response to Message 1493305.  

Man 'o' man! Same ol slop people here want to call science but it isn't in the science thread is it? It's in the politics thread, is it not.

This rock was designed. That design is clear when it is given more of one thing then it normally takes in. This rock takes it on the chin, works the problem out and takes action.

Question: Has this rock ever had so much Co2 that it could not convert it, by use of the seas or the plants that grow on it?

Question: It has been said by many here (wrongly) that the Co2 levels have never risen above a given (by the people who are wrong) level. So, 85 million years ago... The ice cores both north and south (what ice cores? I was falsely accused of not knowing history, once again, flatly WRONG!) and sediment cores from the sea floors tell us a VERY different story then what is being pushed around here. What is the highest level this rock has ever seen and what life was on this rock at that time?

Question: Why is it that all the PIE charts and graph charts shown here and around the world never show anything in the past---beyond 120,000 (start of man) years or so? Got something to hide do they/we?

Hell, got many more but I'll stop here and let you catch up. :-)


Hi ID.

You want to see CO2 data from Geologic time?




There ya go!

RCO2 on that graph is defined as a multiple of the 'pre-industrial' level of CO2 of 300 ppm. An RCO2 of 1.0 therefore = 300 ppm.

The containing pages:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

Quote from the main page text:

Since of the Earth's atmosphere is out-of-balance with the conditions expected from simple chemical equilibrium, it is very hard to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.


As you can see, atmospheric CO2 levels in the distant past have been much higher than they are today. 500 million years ago, it is thought that CO2 levels were about 20 times higher than 'today', remember 300ppm pre-industrial is the 'today' standard they use. So, about 6000ppm. We already had very primitive fish by this time. Life went on.

200 million years ago, the level was 4 to 5 times higher than 'today', so about 1200ppm to 1500ppm. 200 million years ago well inside the Jurassic time period, during the age of the dinosaur. At about this time, mammals evolved. Life went on.

What is the highest level of CO2 we have ever had? I have no clue, but in all likelihood, it was a LOT higher than even the about 6000ppm estimate for about 500 million years ago.

2.3 billion years ago, photosynthetic cyanobacteria living in the sea processed a bunch of CO2 from the air into O2. Prior to this, O2 was not very common at all in the atmosphere (in fact, it was virtually non-existent).


Thank you.

Indeed Oxygen was released by the process we call rusting. LOL! And our atmosphere some 2.3 billion years ago was for the most part nothing but Co2.

You sir have a great grip on reality! That I admire and value, thank you.

It is very true that haters will hate. And there are plenty of haters here. Dull Man has correctly pointed out that money is a huge part of the reason for the hate. If the real truth got out the money would dry up.

A--person here was upset about life dying in the seas. This has happened at least 4 times now. The sea took it on the chin, adjusted and as you pointed out---life went on.

The hypocrisy is what I cannot accept. When all of this crap is boiled down to it's basic elements we find that hypocrisy (this is for your own good) is the basic problem. I just wish they would stop doing things for my own good. As we both know, it seems, they don't even know what is good for themselves so how the hell are they going to know what is best for me? LMAO!
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1494032 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18941
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1494036 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 15:51:08 UTC - in response to Message 1494032.  

I do think you are missing the point a little.
Of course this planet will survive if it gets a little overheated. The question is, in our case, will the human race survive? Or even if it does will it be knocked back to the stone age?
ID: 1494036 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22101
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1494095 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 18:56:45 UTC

2.3 Billion years ago.....
Apart from stating the obvious "That's a long time ago", its also worth noting that there was virtually no life as we would recognise it around at that time. It was before the multi-cellular event (about 1 billion years ago), so the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would be very high as there are very few, if any, "consumers" around to use it up. Move forward a billion years and we see the first multi-cellular things arrive, and carbon dioxide consumption increases quite dramatically, along with the liberation of free oxygen. Atmospheric composition heads quite rapidly into the region it has occupied for the last 500million years or so.
We, as humans, have a vested interest in the atmospheric composition over only the last million or so years (may be ten million, depending on how far back in the mammalian string you want to go...). In that time the general level decreased progressively until a couple of hundred years ago, when we started to use what might be termed "industrial" quantities of carbon based energy, it then started a leap upwards......
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1494095 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494164 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 21:17:12 UTC - in response to Message 1494032.  


What is the highest level of CO2 we have ever had? I have no clue, but in all likelihood, it was a LOT higher than even the about 6000ppm estimate for about 500 million years ago.

2.3 billion years ago, photosynthetic cyanobacteria living in the sea processed a bunch of CO2 from the air into O2. Prior to this, O2 was not very common at all in the atmosphere (in fact, it was virtually non-existent).


Thank you.

Indeed Oxygen was released by the process we call rusting. LOL! And our atmosphere some 2.3 billion years ago was for the most part nothing but Co2.

You sir have a great grip on reality! That I admire and value, thank you.

It is very true that haters will hate. And there are plenty of haters here. Dull Man has correctly pointed out that money is a huge part of the reason for the hate. If the real truth got out the money would dry up.

A--person here was upset about life dying in the seas. This has happened at least 4 times now. The sea took it on the chin, adjusted and as you pointed out---life went on.

The hypocrisy is what I cannot accept. When all of this crap is boiled down to it's basic elements we find that hypocrisy (this is for your own good) is the basic problem. I just wish they would stop doing things for my own good. As we both know, it seems, they don't even know what is good for themselves so how the hell are they going to know what is best for me? LMAO!


Huh?!?!?

ID, the process we call rusting *removes* oxygen, it does not release it. This, and related processes involving elements other than iron (call it the process of oxidation), is what *removes* oxygen gas from the atmosphere, rather rapidly.

The process that I referred to that *releases* the oxygen into the atmosphere is called photosynthesis. It happens only in some living organisms, mostly plants. A few other organisms can manage it, for instance the cyanobacteria I referred to.

Might I suggest going to your local community college and taking a year of general chemistry, and a year of general biology. This might help you in arguing science subjects. A year of calculus-based physics might also do you some good, but not everyone can handle the necessary level of mathematical rigor.

If you are going to argue politics, you will doubtless find that some political science, economics, and history will also be of use. And don't forget the rhetoric.

My problem with the Warmists isn't really the science. I can understand (and share) the scientific concerns on the issue. Now then, there are definite questions as to the magnitude of the problem. Just how bad is it? The state of the science isn't quite there yet. We just don't know, yet, and we really need to find out. Mankind is definitely having an effect on the climate through quite a number of activities. It is likely that large-scale emission of CO2 is also having an effect on the climate. But just how much of the currently observed climate change is due to large-scale CO2 emissions, how much is due to other human activity, and how much of it is natural? We just don't know... yet. And we really do need to figure it out.



Then what is my problem with the Warmists?


The Warmists condemn the Denialists, and quite rightly so. A group of business and political elites have organized and are funding a campaign to mislead the public by denying the possibility of a problem with industrial-scale emission of CO2, without a firm, solid scientific basis. They hope to gain additional wealth and political power.

My problem with the Warmists? They do the same, and the Warmist members of the public apparently either do not care or are blind to it. A group of business and political elites have organized and are funding a campaign to mislead the public with predictions of dire and deadly disasters, without a firm and solid scientific basis. They hope to gain additional wealth and political power.



Both groups are distorting the science and delaying progress on the subject. The leadership of both groups are in it only to enrich and empower themselves. Follow the money and power.

To the Denialists and Warmists:


A plague o' both your houses!

Shakespeare. "Romeo and Juilet" Act 3, scene 1.
ID: 1494164 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494184 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 21:34:45 UTC

Before I was rudely interrupted...

Life will go on, has been used correctly. At times I have encountered people who have absolutely no grasp of Darwins theory. They fail to understand Darwins title of the very books/study/theory, of course that would be Origins, and at the other end what is produced, intelligent life.

In the end, looking at both ends of Darwins theory the questions were never really answered to my satisfaction. Neo-Darwinism has made a failed attempt. There are so called promises, failed theories from Neo-Darwinism. But as of yet...

But we can still work with what we have at hand. Intelligent life will adapt other life will find a niche and cling on. It is the bottlenecking that we see truly what Darwin, not Neo-Darwinism, is all about.

A great example of the correct use of Darwins theory, as I see it is that flight is pre-programed into life, so it would seem to me. 65 million years ago flight was removed for a time from the face of our rock. It rained fire from the sky all over this planet. The K.T. event also triggered over a short period of time insect life to spawn out of its normal timing just to die without reproducing. The proof of this is in what you don't see, exact copies of life forms above and below the K.T. event.

Rude people can indeed be called haters....
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1494184 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24849
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1494186 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 21:37:01 UTC - in response to Message 1494184.  

Rude people can indeed be called haters....


...and ignorant people can be called fools. There is always two sides to every coin. Seeing one side only continuously, will only lead to greater ignorance.
ID: 1494186 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494201 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 22:00:29 UTC - in response to Message 1494164.  

{smile} I had to know, and now I know. Indeed you are correct, rusting does remove O. {smile}

Thanks, but I have been schooled very well, thank you...

Carbon is the most important element for life, metastable is the best fitting word here. When other atoms are added, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus we get the informational backbone called R.N.A. and D.N.A and therefore the building blocks of life, amino acids and proteins.

At any rate there is a great deal of oxygen still locked up in the earths crust that was made during a supernova event a very long time ago that--to make a long story short, made the iron that pumps in our veins and everything else we see...
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1494201 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494212 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 22:07:59 UTC - in response to Message 1494186.  

...Once upon a time a fox was roaming in a forest in search of food. Unfortunately he was caught up in a trap. He tried his best to get free. Heaving to get out of the trap, he was able to do so but lost his tail in the struggle. The fox felt very small. He knew that every fox would laugh at him. He was so sad that he thought of killing himself. But then he said to himself, “It is cowardice to kill oneself. I should do something else.”

At last the fox planned to persuade all the foxes to part with their tails. It was sure to divert their attention from his tail less appearance. So, the fox called a meeting of the foxes and advised them to do away with their tails. He said, “They are ugly, heavy and tiresome. We must get rid of them.”

But one clever fox said, “Good,sir! you wouldn't be so keen to give us that advice, if you were not tail less. Isn’t it?”
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1494212 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494213 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 22:12:35 UTC - in response to Message 1494184.  

ID: 1494213 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11344
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1494214 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 22:13:33 UTC - in response to Message 1494164.  


ID, the process we call rusting *removes* oxygen, it does not release it. This, and related processes involving elements other than iron (call it the process of oxidation), is what *removes* oxygen gas from the atmosphere, rather rapidly.

The process that I referred to that *releases* the oxygen into the atmosphere is called photosynthesis. It happens only in some living organisms, mostly plants. A few other organisms can manage it, for instance the cyanobacteria I referred to.

Might I suggest going to your local community college and taking a year of general chemistry, and a year of general biology. This might help you in arguing science subjects. A year of calculus-based physics might also do you some good, but not everyone can handle the necessary level of mathematical rigor.

If you are going to argue politics, you will doubtless find that some political science, economics, and history will also be of use. And don't forget the rhetoric.

But Major it is much easier to go without facts.
ID: 1494214 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1494294 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 3:48:21 UTC - in response to Message 1494184.  

Before I was rudely interrupted...

Life will go on, has been used correctly. At times I have encountered people who have absolutely no grasp of Darwins theory. They fail to understand Darwins title of the very books/study/theory, of course that would be Origins, and at the other end what is produced, intelligent life.

In the end, looking at both ends of Darwins theory the questions were never really answered to my satisfaction. Neo-Darwinism has made a failed attempt. There are so called promises, failed theories from Neo-Darwinism. But as of yet...

But we can still work with what we have at hand. Intelligent life will adapt other life will find a niche and cling on. It is the bottlenecking that we see truly what Darwin, not Neo-Darwinism, is all about.

A great example of the correct use of Darwins theory, as I see it is that flight is pre-programed into life, so it would seem to me. 65 million years ago flight was removed for a time from the face of our rock. It rained fire from the sky all over this planet. The K.T. event also triggered over a short period of time insect life to spawn out of its normal timing just to die without reproducing. The proof of this is in what you don't see, exact copies of life forms above and below the K.T. event.

Rude people can indeed be called haters....

So I quess that rats are intelligent then? They have ADAPTED to live with and near man. Lice must be intelligent to, They have ADAPTED to live on humans.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1494294 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1494296 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 3:53:23 UTC - in response to Message 1494294.  
Last modified: 24 Mar 2014, 3:53:54 UTC

Before I was rudely interrupted...

Life will go on, has been used correctly. At times I have encountered people who have absolutely no grasp of Darwins theory. They fail to understand Darwins title of the very books/study/theory, of course that would be Origins, and at the other end what is produced, intelligent life.

In the end, looking at both ends of Darwins theory the questions were never really answered to my satisfaction. Neo-Darwinism has made a failed attempt. There are so called promises, failed theories from Neo-Darwinism. But as of yet...

But we can still work with what we have at hand. Intelligent life will adapt other life will find a niche and cling on. It is the bottlenecking that we see truly what Darwin, not Neo-Darwinism, is all about.

A great example of the correct use of Darwins theory, as I see it is that flight is pre-programed into life, so it would seem to me. 65 million years ago flight was removed for a time from the face of our rock. It rained fire from the sky all over this planet. The K.T. event also triggered over a short period of time insect life to spawn out of its normal timing just to die without reproducing. The proof of this is in what you don't see, exact copies of life forms above and below the K.T. event.

Rude people can indeed be called haters....

So I quess that rats are intelligent then? They have ADAPTED to live with and near man. Lice must be intelligent to, They have ADAPTED to live on humans.


They "adapted" so well James, that they became three different kinds, head, pubic and clothing. :/
ID: 1494296 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1494299 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 3:54:47 UTC - in response to Message 1494296.  

Before I was rudely interrupted...

Life will go on, has been used correctly. At times I have encountered people who have absolutely no grasp of Darwins theory. They fail to understand Darwins title of the very books/study/theory, of course that would be Origins, and at the other end what is produced, intelligent life.

In the end, looking at both ends of Darwins theory the questions were never really answered to my satisfaction. Neo-Darwinism has made a failed attempt. There are so called promises, failed theories from Neo-Darwinism. But as of yet...

But we can still work with what we have at hand. Intelligent life will adapt other life will find a niche and cling on. It is the bottlenecking that we see truly what Darwin, not Neo-Darwinism, is all about.

A great example of the correct use of Darwins theory, as I see it is that flight is pre-programed into life, so it would seem to me. 65 million years ago flight was removed for a time from the face of our rock. It rained fire from the sky all over this planet. The K.T. event also triggered over a short period of time insect life to spawn out of its normal timing just to die without reproducing. The proof of this is in what you don't see, exact copies of life forms above and below the K.T. event.

Rude people can indeed be called haters....

So I quess that rats are intelligent then? They have ADAPTED to live with and near man. Lice must be intelligent to, They have ADAPTED to live on humans.


They "adapted" so well James, that they became three different kinds, head, pubic and clothing. :/

They just have to be intellegent then. ID can rest his case.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1494299 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1494300 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 3:56:36 UTC - in response to Message 1494298.  

[quote]Before I was rudely interrupted...

Life will go on, has been used correctly. At times I have encountered people who have absolutely no grasp of Darwins theory. They fail to understand Darwins title of the very books/study/theory, of course that would be Origins, and at the other end what is produced, intelligent life.

In the end, looking at both ends of Darwins theory the questions were never really answered to my satisfaction. Neo-Darwinism has made a failed attempt. There are so called promises, failed theories from Neo-Darwinism. But as of yet...

But we can still work with what we have at hand. Intelligent life will adapt other life will find a niche and cling on. It is the bottlenecking that we see truly what Darwin, not Neo-Darwinism, is all about.

A great example of the correct use of Darwins theory, as I see it is that flight is pre-programed into life, so it would seem to me. 65 million years ago flight was removed for a time from the face of our rock. It rained fire from the sky all over this planet. The K.T. event also triggered over a short period of time insect life to spawn out of its normal timing just to die without reproducing. The proof of this is in what you don't see, exact copies of life forms above and below the K.T. event.

Rude people can indeed be called haters....

So I quess that rats are intelligent then? They have ADAPTED to live with and near man. Lice must be intelligent to, They have ADAPTED to live on humans.


They "adapted" so well James, that they became three different designs, head, pubic and clothing. :/

I clearly am not because I think I accidentally re-quoted instead of editing, so I'll shut up for a bit :)
ID: 1494300 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24849
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1494476 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 13:21:49 UTC

SSDD

It seems the intelligent on these boards just cannot see further than their nose.

If you know a poster continues their same old crap, why bother reading the thread and replying?

I.D. is not wrong here, we are!
ID: 1494476 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494499 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 14:21:03 UTC

Can't we all just get along?

Way too much argumentum ad hominem going on around here. And before anyone gets upset, yes, I know that I have been guilty of some of it. And it isn't just in *this* thread, but scattered out pretty much all over the Politics forum.

Maybe the entire Politics forum needs to be locked for a while as a 'time out' so that many of the people posting here can cool off.

If the intelligent here can't get along, what hope does that give us for the rest of the world.

Besides, all the hot air around here *is* causing global climate change. ;)

Lets all just calm down. Ok?
ID: 1494499 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1494547 - Posted: 24 Mar 2014, 16:03:26 UTC - in response to Message 1494525.  

Eeek.
ID: 1494547 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.