Settled science

[swampwater]

If you need support when dialoging with the liberal global warming whackos here is a great sight to blow them away and if you havew a bachalors or above degree in the listed sciences consider sighning the petition. Swampy


http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

[ruffryder]

If you need support when dialoging with the liberal global warming whackos here is a great sight to blow them away and if you havew a bachalors or above degree in the listed sciences consider sighning the petition. Swampy


http://www.petitionproject.org/

I don't know what is worse, the fact that they state all the science is junk, or that they state that it is actually better for people with increase pollution.... So emissions controls are harmful to human health? ha ha...

whackos on the left, whackos on the right, here I am stuck in the middle not with you... Little Tom Petty rip off..

 

[maluchm]

whackos on the left, whackos on the right, here I am stuck in the middle not with you... Little Tom Petty rip off..

Steve Miller Band

 

[ruffryder]

Steve Miller Band

ahh... snap. I didn't even get that right? Neither did you it seems.. ha ha...

Stealers Wheels is the band. Thank you google and youtube...

Video

 

[swampwater]

First off calling junk science junk science does not mean they want actual pollution so don't put words in their petition second the global whackos call carbon dioxide polution, should go right along with your theories. third such rediculous programs as biodiesel have been shown to be more harmfull to the enviornment than fossil fuels. But than I guess your smarter than 34,000 american scieantists. Do you think you can find 34,000 american scientists to sign a petition for man made global warming? Swampy

I don't know what is worse, the fact that they state all the science is junk, or that they state that it is actually better for people with increase pollution.... So emissions controls are harmful to human health? ha ha...

whackos on the left, whackos on the right, here I am stuck in the middle not with you... Little Tom Petty rip off..

 

[swampwater]

Better change this quick before Ruffy calls error, there were only 31,478 scientists of whom 9,029 had PHDs. And they did not call all science junk. Swampy

 

[ruffryder]

Better change this quick before Ruffy calls error, there were only 31,478 scientists of whom 9,029 had PHDs. And they did not call all science junk. Swampy

I am wondering what type of scientists don't have Phd's? I thought that was a prerequisite. Now where are all the degree bashers?

First off calling junk science junk science does not mean they want actual pollution so don't put words in their petition second the global whackos call carbon dioxide polution, should go right along with your theories. third such rediculous programs as biodiesel have been shown to be more harmfull to the enviornment than fossil fuels. But than I guess your smarter than 34,000 american scieantists. Do you think you can find 34,000 american scientists to sign a petition for man made global warming? Swampy

What does this have to do about bio deisel? So what types of CO2 sources are not sources of other pollution? I am talking man made sources here...

I am all for man made global warming.. lets burn this mutha out! ha ha

 

[swampwater]

Typical Ruffy reply change the question instead of answering. Can you supply a listing of that many american scientists who believe in man made global warming?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swampwater
Better change this quick before Ruffy calls error, there were only 31,478 scientists of whom 9,029 had PHDs. And they did not call all science junk. Swampy

I am wondering what type of scientists don't have Phd's? I thought that was a prerequisite. Now where are all the degree bashers?

Where on the site do they say all the science is junk or that it is better to increase pollution?


Originally Posted by ruffryder
I don't know what is worse, the fact that they state all the science is junk, or that they state that it is actually better for people with increase pollution.... So emissions controls are harmful to human health? ha ha...

whackos on the left, whackos on the right, here I am stuck in the middle not with you... Little Tom Petty rip off..

It has alot to do with biodiesel, that is one of the reasons they are forcing it down our throats to reduce fossil fuel pollution. The other question has nothing to do with the petition or man made global warming ruse.

What does this have to do about bio deisel? So what types of CO2 sources are not sources of other pollution? I am talking man made sources here...

 

[ruffryder]

Typical Ruffy reply change the question instead of answering. Can you supply a listing of that many american scientists who believe in man made global warming?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swampwater
Better change this quick before Ruffy calls error, there were only 31,478 scientists of whom 9,029 had PHDs. And they did not call all science junk. Swampy

I am wondering what type of scientists don't have Phd's? I thought that was a prerequisite. Now where are all the degree bashers?

Where on the site do they say all the science is junk or that it is better to increase pollution?

Originally Posted by ruffryder
I don't know what is worse, the fact that they state all the science is junk, or that they state that it is actually better for people with increase pollution.... So emissions controls are harmful to human health? ha ha...

whackos on the left, whackos on the right, here I am stuck in the middle not with you... Little Tom Petty rip off..

It has alot to do with biodiesel, that is one of the reasons they are forcing it down our throats to reduce fossil fuel pollution. The other question has nothing to do with the petition or man made global warming ruse.

What does this have to do about bio deisel? So what types of CO2 sources are not sources of other pollution? I am talking man made sources here...

Dude, you need some work on quoting... seriously..

Increased CO2 pollution = better for plants and animals. Now what are all the sources of CO2 pollution, man made that is. What other pollution comes from those same sources?

The fact is, engines emit lots of pollution, CO2 being one of the things emitted (whether or not you think it is a pollution). Most of the sources for CO2 are also sources for what we both would say is pollution. They have a relationship, a direct one. You decrease CO2 emissions, you also reduce other pollution at the same time. That is the point I was trying to make.

Oh, and the answer is yes. I just happen to have 31 thousand non Phd'd scientists programed on my cell phone.. lol

 

[swampwater]

Sorry but i don't have time to make sure it is to your specs.
I am not interested in your pollution sources you can take that up with the 31,000 + scientists. Your post simply states they call all the science junk and they want to increase pollution and I requested you point ou those statements on the site so I can confirm. And if you don't have them on your cell why don't you go to their website, Oh maybe there is none. Point made. Swampy

Dude, you need some work on quoting... seriously..

Increased CO2 pollution = better for plants and animals. Now what are all the sources of CO2 pollution, man made that is. What other pollution comes from those same sources?

The fact is, engines emit lots of pollution, CO2 being one of the things emitted (whether or not you think it is a pollution). Most of the sources for CO2 are also sources for what we both would say is pollution. They have a relationship, a direct one. You decrease CO2 emissions, you also reduce other pollution at the same time. That is the point I was trying to make.

Oh, and the answer is yes. I just happen to have 31 thousand non Phd'd scientists programed on my cell phone.. lol

 

[ruffryder]

Sorry but i don't have time to make sure it is to your specs.

It is called, typing clearly. If you expect people to spend the time to read your posts, it should be expected that you take the time to try and make your posts clear / easy to read / understand. I thought it was just common courtesy.

I am not interested in your pollution sources you can take that up with the 31,000 + scientists.

"Your pollution sources?" ha ha.. Do you even know who all signed them anyways? I would hold little information from a person that calls them a scientist with only a bs..... seriously. Being a scientist is pretty darn abstract / and very specialized, just a like a Phd. So you are saying your information is irrifutable because of your 31 thousand unanamous sources? ha ha I would have thought understanding the sources of pollution would be important in discussion said pollution. The sources of pollution are very similar whether you are talking CO2, CO, N0x, HC, Mercury, and the rest. To reduce one, you can generally reduce the rest. That is the connection. Right now, people are focusing on CO2 (and wrongly) when the pollution connection is much easier to make elsewhere. Just it is hard to draw conclusions that "The world is going to end". It won't. It will just get dirty and nasty, and smell bad. Kind of like Tacoma..

Your post simply states they call all the science junk and they want to increase pollution and I requested you point ou those statements on the site so I can confirm. And if you don't have them on your cell why don't you go to their website, Oh maybe there is none. Point made. Swampy

From the petition

Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce mayny benefitial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.

So lets make the world better and run all motors non-stop! That is what I meant by junk!

 

[swampwater]

Sorry but you have yet to refute a single question, just trying to demonize the sources, typical liberal answer. Got documentation CO2 emissions are destroying the earth? Show me where they call the science junk or they promote increasing, as you posted, and where I can find 31,000 scientists in agreement with your position. Maybe that is the problem I am not typing my questions clearly, sorry. Swampwater

It is called, typing clearly. If you expect people to spend the time to read your posts, it should be expected that you take the time to try and make your posts clear / easy to read / understand. I thought it was just common courtesy.


"Your pollution sources?" ha ha.. Do you even know who all signed them anyways? I would hold little information from a person that calls them a scientist with only a bs..... seriously. Being a scientist is pretty darn abstract / and very specialized, just a like a Phd. So you are saying your information is irrifutable because of your 31 thousand unanamous sources? ha ha I would have thought understanding the sources of pollution would be important in discussion said pollution. The sources of pollution are very similar whether you are talking CO2, CO, N0x, HC, Mercury, and the rest. To reduce one, you can generally reduce the rest. That is the connection. Right now, people are focusing on CO2 (and wrongly) when the pollution connection is much easier to make elsewhere. Just it is hard to draw conclusions that "The world is going to end". It won't. It will just get dirty and nasty, and smell bad. Kind of like Tacoma..



From the petition


So lets make the world better and run all motors non-stop! That is what I meant by junk!

 

[ruffryder]

Sorry but you have yet to refute a single question, just trying to demonize the sources, typical liberal answer. Got documentation CO2 emissions are destroying the earth?

I have none, that is why I am not arguing that point. CO2 and it's effects on the earth are very poorly understood, by all sides of the argument. Many more knobs to turn in the earth then that.[/QUOTE]

Demonize sources.. you have no sources, just misc people that probably used your same rational.. they have degrees, they must be smart.. lol

Show me where they call the science junk or they promote increasing, as you posted,

They stated more C02 is beneficial. See the quote from the petition.

Just below here..

Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many benefitial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.

I don't know how to make that any clearer. Increases = benefitial results. So they are promoting the already increased levels, therefore they are proponents of increasing levels too. Hey look, increased CO2 = good... That is what they are saying...

and where I can find 31,000 scientists in agreement with your position. Maybe that is the problem I am not typing my questions clearly, sorry. Swampwater

That C02 is produced by the same sources that produce other harmful pollutions? I don't need any scientists, there is nothing to prove / disprove. They take MEASUREMENTS of the pollution. There is no argument there.

So I need to find 31,000 scientists that think mercury in the air is bad? ha ha.. I don't think you understand the point I am arguing at all.. C02 is BS, period!! Stop talking about it, it is BS. It just so happens that things that emit CO2, also emit other gases and chemicals, that ARE pollutants. So if you reduce C02, you also reduce the other emissions that are pollutants. Kind of backwards, but if the end result is reduced pollutants (the real ones) then I don't really have a problem with it. (too a point)

I guess I am curious, do you view anything that comes out of your exhaust as a pollutant? Do you know what comes out of your exhaust pipe? Do you know gases coal plants emit? I think this is info that is needed to make the decision for yourself, not basing it on what other people tell you is true, or what you "feel" to be true.

 

[Wade]

Oh ruffy, your going off the deep end here.

NO, CO2 is distinct from pollution. That is the point. If you have a pollutant, lets say, a simple hydrocarbon from incomplete combustion. I would definitely claim that passing it over a catalyst and oxidizing it fully, reacting it down to CO2 and H2O is CLEAN, and not a pollutant. But, if you say CO2 is a pollutant, than you can't just react it, you must bottle it, and figure out what to do with it.

Let's take a coal fired power plant. Your right, there's carbon, sulfur that forms SO2, nitrites that form NOx, even sooty particles.

I can catch the soot, I can use processes to capture the SO2 and NOx, but how in the hell do you catch CO2????? And, if you take a solid block of carbon out of the ground, add two oxygen's from the atmosphere, thereby nearly 4X'ing it's weight and of course it's now a gas, what do I do with this monstrous volume of CO2 gas? And, don't tell me you can compress it, and store it under ground. Doesn't work. You might be able to make a case for a biological conversion to bio petroleum or something, but that's it.

The point is, if CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doesn't do any more harm than good, why should we waste valuable energy sequestering it, when we should be concentrating on the real problem?

 

[ruffryder]

The point is, if CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doesn't do any more harm than good, why should we waste valuable energy sequestering it, when we should be concentrating on the real problem?

I don't know. Probably for the same reason we do anything. We are a reactive society. We only act when we are forced into it, or at least think we are. We only act when "We have to do something now!"

Or a better reason would be why haven't we done anything about it yet? Part of the answer is that it is cheaper to pollute, always has, though, hopefully it won't always will be.

I disagree with your comments about C02, though you have a lot of "it's" in your statements so maybe I agree? Not too clear... I do agree, from reducing other pollutants as in a catalyst, it seems like it would be counter productive, if there was more emphasis put on the C02 as compared to the other ones.

As it stands now, with all pollution control active, if you were to reduce CO2 output by 50 percent, you would also reduce the other pollutants by 50 percent. That was the point I was trying to make, as it is a linear relationship in terms of reduction. That is where the use of C02 as a control means can work. The best way to limit C02 is to not create it in the first place. This can be accomplished by using more efficient technologies, or by using other resources to displace the use of C02 technologies. I am not a huge supporter of reducing C02 output to zero right now, but we do need to start at least trying to reduce it.

 

[Wade]

OK. Sounds like what your talking about is reduction of pollution through reduction in human activity. Just about anything you do, will release CO2, everything (even this thread) has a carbon footprint. And, the United States is the leader in CO2. So, regulating CO2 regulates human development. But, mostly it throttles developed countries, and makes them responsible. Seems to me, the United States is being setup for "world scapegoat" yet again.

I'd rather see us fix real problems, get people out into space (yha it a complicated justificaiton). Reduce world population. Figure out an energy solution that rids us of the Middle East headache. Take Nukes away from crazy people.

I mean, take a look at China's problems, even just the desertification of the North, should they be worrying about that, or CO2? When people have no water to drink, CO2 shmeyotu. Fusion power plants, and water desalination / purification plants, that's what they need.

 

[ruffryder]

OK. Sounds like what your talking about is reduction of pollution through reduction in human activity. Just about anything you do, will release CO2, everything (even this thread) has a carbon footprint. And, the United States is the leader in CO2. So, regulating CO2 regulates human development. But, mostly it throttles developed countries, and makes them responsible. Seems to me, the United States is being setup for "world scapegoat" yet again.

I'd rather see us fix real problems, get people out into space (yha it a complicated justificaiton). Reduce world population. Figure out an energy solution that rids us of the Middle East headache. Take Nukes away from crazy people.

I mean, take a look at China's problems, even just the desertification of the North, should they be worrying about that, or CO2? When people have no water to drink, CO2 shmeyotu. Fusion power plants, and water desalination / purification plants, that's what they need.

As always, you bring up excellent / valid points.

So my question to you is, why haven't we started to do this already? Why do we need the big show? The big scare, the big "Do this or the world will end" to do anything.

As to a reduction in human activity, not really. More of a shift to efficiency, conservation, and other means of energy production. Oh, China has surpassed the US in CO2 emissions...

 

[Wade]

As always, you bring up excellent / valid points.

So my question to you is, why haven't we started to do this already? Why do we need the big show? The big scare, the big "Do this or the world will end" to do anything.

Why the big scare? Money / Power / Control. Think environmental evangelicals.

Why we haven't started yet? I don't know. let's face it; good people start good organization, with good intentions. But, the money men and politicians show up and ruin the organization. Some things have been started and even completed. We have done a lot of great things in this world. We managed to keep many animals from going extinct. We've cleaned rivers up. We replanted the west after the dust bowl. We went to the moon, but then we just quit. Somebody jumps up and says, hey there's starving babies, and your wasting money playing in space. Then the politician sucks money out of science and research, to pour in the black hole of social programs. They had no clue how much damage they did to the poor, when they killed science funding.

So, to answer the question, Greed. That's the best I can come up with. When it becomes necessary, we will do whatever needs to be done. We just have a hard time starting.

 

[Ollie]

good read on global warming.

http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm