Posted on 12/15/2009 10:03:03 AM PST by ezfindit
bttt
So far, you sound more like one than not. And you haven't really addressed that which I have said in response, other than to try to ever-so-subtly imply that I am a rube, an ignorant hick who knows nothing. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas of consequence, nor is it the most plentiful. But it is being used as a political weapon out of all proportion, and your comments basically defending the so-called "science" of the warmists is, or seems, somewhat disingenuous when compared to your denials of being a warmist. Perhaps you should address the seeming contradictions in your presentations, rather than try to subtly wound a messenger who is calling you out on those contradictions.
You also have no understanding of the magnitude of the concentrations involved, as you demonstrate in the above quote.
I wasn't attempting to give a scientific dissertation, I was simply pointing out what warmists don't seem to want to hear, that things don't happen in a vacuum, and things and processes are interconnected, and interdependent. Perhaps I didn't adequately make that clear.
CO2 is around 380 ppm. Any added by man when fossil fuels are burned is produced by carbon in the fuel combining with O2 already in the air which is being used for combustion oxygen. So when fossil fuels are burned a miniscule proportion of the O2 (free oxygen) in the air is converted to CO2. When plants remove this CO2 and use the carbon in photosynthesis, they do not "add oxygen to the air." They break the chemical bond between the carbon and the oxygen, releasing the O2 back as free oxygen. In any case, with CO2 at 380 ppm and O2 at about 210,000 ppm, CO2 levels have little effect on oxygen levels.
All well and good. But the fact remains, that increases in CO2 do bring about more photosynthesis (which is what I was talking about, not burning fossil fuels) which does remove CO2 from the air. So really nothing has been proven here other than we both have an understanding of how oxygen is bound and released in natural processes involving the combustion of fossil fuels, and the photsynthesis of CO2 to liberate O2 back into the environment from which it was taken.
Bump! ;-)
101 Algore is an asshat
But it is still well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Yes, but even weather scientists , IN PRACTICE, do not use the amount of C02 to determine temperature, or forecast temperature changes.
Biologists do not change the amount of C02 in a greenhouse, to change the temperature.
So, on the face of it, their claims that it does influence the temperature are not born out by their actual practices, or by reality.
Regardless to the C02 on Venus, the real reason it is 900F is because IT'S CLOSER TO THE SUN.
I don’t think Sherman is defending GW alarmists.
I think he is trying to dutifully explain the proper science that those scientists should be using, instead of the wacky crap they are trying to pawn off on the world just to keep their pockets lined well.
The thing is, the so-called "proper" science does not make the case. Add to that the emails which clearly showed that the scientists were engaged in jiggering the data, changing it and even eliminating it, and using flawed formulae to arrive at an already-decided outcome, and it is clear that science was not the consideration. The entire AWG/ACC agenda is political, and Socialist in its goals of wealth redistribution, destruction of Capitalism, and impoverishing the USA. Arguing the science is really missing the point. Common sense alone indicates that the so-called science is bogus. The real threat is the Socialist agenda underlying the entire scam.
Arguing the science is the point.
It is their improper use of logic and scientific method in the pursuit of science. Had they used the data properly, and not insisted on fudging it, they might have gotten realistic answers.
Actually, I think you and I (and about 20 million others) agree.
The current GW crisis is just BAD SCIENCE.
Actually, if science were the point of this, they wouldn't have been fudging data, destroying or altering data. No real scientist would do such a thing. Not one with any integrity. The real science would have shown that whatever climate change is happening, it is not caused by man, but is a natural phenomenon which we will need to adapt to. That is the correct way to look at this.
No, the entire issue is a political one, not a scientific one. More pointedly, it is about Socialism, and redistribution of wealth. It is about destroying Capitalism. We could argue the science with them until we're blue in the face. They don't care. All science is to them is a way to put a false face on their true agenda. Expose the agenda, and it can be stopped.
Arguing the science is a distraction they will use to hide their real goals. They had to know that there was a risk their methods would be found out. They're playing a shell game, while they continue to push their real agenda: Socialism
There is no crisis. The true science shows that there is not a crisis. The crisis is the attempted Socialist money grab.
Thanks. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do.
Mixing science with politics is disastrous to both.
It becomes impossible to discuss scientific data without filtering it thru a consideration of how it will affect political issues. Scientific data that supports one’s political position is jumped on with glee, while data that tends to support “the other side” is ignored or rejected out of hand.
While obviously the warmists have been egregiously guilty of this, for a host of reasons ranging from filthy lucre to groupthink and the misguided belief that they must do so to save the world, those who oppose the warmists can just as easily fall off the other side of the bridge for similarly varied reasons. There ARE people who oppose the warmist POV who have conflicts of interest that by definition make it difficult for them to examine the data objectively. The MSM, of course, portrays only “skeptics” as having such conflicts, while every single warmist operates without any.
I’m trying to promote, without much success, having scientific data interpreted without reference to its political policy considerations. I’m pretty sure this is a losing battle.
Thanks. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do.
Mixing science with politics is disastrous to both.
It becomes impossible to discuss scientific data without filtering it thru a consideration of how it will affect political issues. Scientific data that supports one’s political position is jumped on with glee, while data that tends to support “the other side” is ignored or rejected out of hand.
While obviously the warmists have been egregiously guilty of this, for a host of reasons ranging from filthy lucre to groupthink and the misguided belief that they must do so to save the world, those who oppose the warmists can just as easily fall off the other side of the bridge for similarly varied reasons. There ARE people who oppose the warmist POV who have conflicts of interest that by definition make it difficult for them to examine the data objectively. The MSM, of course, portrays only “skeptics” as having such conflicts, while every single warmist operates without any.
I’m trying to promote, without much success, having scientific data interpreted without reference to its political policy considerations. I’m pretty sure this is a losing battle.
How do I post a photo?
Sorry bout the dupes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.