NCclimber 0 #76 July 10, 2007 Quote>Do you consider anyone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for >increasing "CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere by 50%" to be a denier? Tell you what - I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Deal? Deal. You first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #77 July 10, 2007 >Deal. You first. The deal was I will answer your question if you answer mine. Are you able to do so? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #78 July 10, 2007 Quote >Deal. You first. The deal was I will answer your question if you answer mine. Are you able to do so? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, labels like hysterics and deniers are little more than cheap tricks to put the targeted group on the defensive. The only reason I started using alarmist and hysteric was because I got tired of your use of the term "denier". To answer your question, no. For some, like Al Gore, I think the lable fits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #79 July 10, 2007 >To answer your question, no. Fair enough. To answer your question: "Do you consider anyone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for increasing "CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere by 50%" to be a denier?" If someone does not believe that man has increased CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere significantly - then yes, I'd consider them a denier. (Or, to be fair, they could just be uninformed.) The evidence that we have increased CO2 concentrations significantly is overwhelming, and their position is likely not based on science, but rather on the desire to deny the validity of a political position. Hence the name. If someone thinks that the number is closer to 40% or 48% or whatever due to X, Y and Z then I would not consider them a denier - just someone who disagrees on the details of what our CO2 releases have done in the atmosphere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #80 July 10, 2007 QuoteNotice I said "aside from Global warming" and pay attention to the fact that I was talking about Environmental Issues...like you know, water shortages that are being felt throughout the entire world, droughts, desertification, etc. etc. These environmental issues go hand in hand with poverty, starvation, and disease. No need to get all uppity about it, I was just pointing it out. Just think of the kewl coastal deserts there will be in the Southeast with desertification brought on by droughts ( we have been seeing for the last few years) in Georgia and Alabama... We dont have to worry about Florida it will all be under water with rising ocean levels.... LOTS of kewl SCUBA diving opportunities though... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #81 July 10, 2007 >We dont have to worry about Florida it will all be under water with >rising ocean levels.... LOTS of kewl SCUBA diving opportunities though... SCUBA tours of Disneyworld! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #82 July 10, 2007 Please tell us what kind of denier you are, I, II or III?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #83 July 10, 2007 Quote Just think of the kewl coastal deserts there will be in the Southeast with desertification brought on by droughts ( we have been seeing for the last few years) in Georgia and Alabama... We dont have to worry about Florida it will all be under water with rising ocean levels.... LOTS of kewl SCUBA diving opportunities though... It only takes one hurricane to eliminate drought in this area. Of course, we know that if there is a hurricane, it's because of manmade global warming, and if there aren't any hurricanes, it's because of manmade global warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #84 July 10, 2007 Quote Please tell us what kind of denier you are, I, II or III? Do you still beat your wife? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #85 July 10, 2007 Quote Quote Please tell us what kind of denier you are, I, II or III? Do you still beat your wife? I don't have one. Now how about an honest answer from you, if you can manage it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #86 July 11, 2007 I would take the side that man is not causing the warming of the planet!! As for your signature comment <16,000 is greater than 2500 Some 16,000 scientists, two thirds of whom have advanced degrees, including over 6000 with Ph.D.s in science, have signed a petition that states, >"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #87 July 11, 2007 http://www.energyadvocate.com/petiproj.htm"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #88 July 11, 2007 Quote>MAYBE BUT IF WE STOPPED ALL MAN MADE CO2 EMISSIONS TODAY > IT WOULD STILL INCREASE BECAUSE NATURE MAKES UP 96% OF TOTAL >C02 EMITTED Nope. Nature does indeed emit CO2; it also absorbs it. That's why CO2 levels stay about the same over medium time frames without our interference. If we emit more than the environment can absorb (which we are doing now) CO2 levels climb. That's why we've gone from 280ppm to almost 400ppm. That's basic science; really can't argue with it. You could do the experiments yourself with a pretty simple chemistry set. >see chart below and then explain the stays the same theory again? if co2 makes so much of a difference then why is it cooler today then it was 2k years ago and 500 years ago? >THOUGH IT IS A GREENHOUSE GAS ITS OVERALL CONCENTRATION >AND OVERALL EFFECT ON TEMP IS SO MINIMAL YOU COULD TRIPLE IT OR >COMPLETELY REMOVE IT AND HAVE LITTLE EFFECT EITHER WAY That's nonsense. Take a look at the attached graph showing absorption spectra. Now note the bands at 4.5uM and 10.8uM. All CO2! That's provable in a lab, and remains true NO MATTER HOW MANY WORDS YOU CAPITALIZE. > sorry i guess I'll just have to start doing this then>>>>>>> If we removed all the CO2, we'd lose 12% of our greenhouse effect, or a change of about 40 watts in the heat budget. By comparison, all this heating we're seeing now is the result of a less then 2 watt change in the heat budget. That means it would have a huge effect.> see graph previously attached co2 makes up 3 % of the green house gases in the atmosphere >I DONT BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN EFFECT ON WEATHER AT ALL. Think Las Vegas has changed the weather in the area surrounding it? Think cities retain heat at night? Ever flown over an asphalt road under canopy? Think irrigating thousands of acres of desert might just change the way water is transmitted through the atmosphere?> that is a different subject as asphalt and crops are not greenhouse gases. Right after 9/11, all the planes in the US were grounded. No contrails, no extra water vapor at 30,000 feet, no nucleation particles. Result? Temperature swings increased by 2 degrees F. And that's just contrails; just a small part of our effect on the environment.> well planes were flying yesterday and flying today but the temp changed by 6 degrees F. so what happened between then and now to cause that.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #89 July 11, 2007 >see chart below and then explain the stays the same theory again? Can't open it; what is it? >if co2 makes so much of a difference then why is it cooler today then it >was 2k years ago and 500 years ago? Because things other than CO2 can influence climate. >see graph previously attached co2 makes up 3 % of the green house >gases in the atmosphere Nope, sorry. That's untrue, and repeating it won't make it any more true. >that is a different subject as asphalt and crops are not greenhouse gases. True. And greenhouse gases are not clouds. And clouds are not SUV's. >well planes were flying yesterday and flying today but the temp changed >by 6 degrees F. so what happened between then and now to cause that. The sun went down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #90 July 11, 2007 > I would take the side that man is not causing the warming of the planet!! Yes; you have explained your political position several hundred times by now. >Some 16,000 scientists, two thirds of whom have advanced degrees, >including over 6000 with Ph.D.s in science, have signed a petition that >states . . . Yep. If you're talking about the Oregon petition, several organizations tried to verify those signatures. 90% of the signatories did not have PhD's in any applicable field. Of the ones that do, well over half were fake. So you're talking about a petition where less than 5% were 'real' signatures per your definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #91 July 11, 2007 Quote >YES BUT ITS PART OF A CYCLE, IT COOLS AND WARMS AND COOLS AND >WARMS OVER AND OVER Right. We're just forcing that to happen much faster and sooner than it has ever happened before. Boy, God really fucked up big-time if he created us, but wanted a planet that was gonna remain in some sort of idyllic homeostasis, didn't he? I mean, we seem to find a way to go and do EVERY SINGLE THING he specifically wanted us NOT to do! ...and enjoy the shit out of doing it!!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #92 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Please tell us what kind of denier you are, I, II or III? Do you still beat your wife? I don't have one. Now how about an honest answer from you, if you can manage it. You... lecturing me... on honesty.Good one, perfesser. That's definitely a 10 (out of 10) on the irony scale. Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,590 #93 July 11, 2007 (Getting back to the topic of the original posting) QuoteWell, we're big rock singers We got golden fingers And we're loved everywhere we go..... (that sounds like us) We sing about beauty and we sing about truth At ten-thousand dollars a show..... (right) "The Cover of the Rolling Stone" -- Dr Hook & the Medicine Show"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #94 July 11, 2007 Quote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #95 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already. Well good. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #96 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already. Well good. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find. As usual you avoid giving an honest answer to a straightforward question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #97 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already. Well good. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find. As usual you avoid giving an honest answer to a straightforward question. Sorry dude. It's hard to answer a question, when you don't know what is being asked. How about clarifying what you mean. Then I'll answer the question. Or are you just interested in childish games of "gotcha"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #98 July 11, 2007 >How about clarifying what you mean. Allow me. Do you think the earth's average surface temperature is getting warmer? If so, do you think that man's emissions of CO2, and subsequent increase in greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere, are the primary reason? If so, do you think this might be a good thing overall? (I have no illusions that you will actually answer these questions, but at least they're out there.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #99 July 11, 2007 >God really fucked up big-time if he created us, but wanted a planet >that was gonna remain in some sort of idyllic homeostasis, didn't he? Not at all! Per Ann Coulter, a popular right-wing commentator: "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #100 July 11, 2007 Quote>How about clarifying what you mean. Allow me. Do you think the earth's average surface temperature is getting warmer? Yes. QuoteIf so, do you think that man's emissions of CO2, and subsequent increase in greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere, are the primary reason? I'm not sure. I think it's quite possible, but I'm not convinced. QuoteIf so, do you think this might be a good thing overall? If man-made pollution is the primary cause for rising global temps we should attempt to remedy the situation immediately. Quote(I have no illusions that you will actually answer these questions, but at least they're out there.) Sorry to burst your bubble, sport. Loved the PA, too. So, based on my answers, which kind of "Denier" am I? I, II or III? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 4 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,120 #89 July 11, 2007 >see chart below and then explain the stays the same theory again? Can't open it; what is it? >if co2 makes so much of a difference then why is it cooler today then it >was 2k years ago and 500 years ago? Because things other than CO2 can influence climate. >see graph previously attached co2 makes up 3 % of the green house >gases in the atmosphere Nope, sorry. That's untrue, and repeating it won't make it any more true. >that is a different subject as asphalt and crops are not greenhouse gases. True. And greenhouse gases are not clouds. And clouds are not SUV's. >well planes were flying yesterday and flying today but the temp changed >by 6 degrees F. so what happened between then and now to cause that. The sun went down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #90 July 11, 2007 > I would take the side that man is not causing the warming of the planet!! Yes; you have explained your political position several hundred times by now. >Some 16,000 scientists, two thirds of whom have advanced degrees, >including over 6000 with Ph.D.s in science, have signed a petition that >states . . . Yep. If you're talking about the Oregon petition, several organizations tried to verify those signatures. 90% of the signatories did not have PhD's in any applicable field. Of the ones that do, well over half were fake. So you're talking about a petition where less than 5% were 'real' signatures per your definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #91 July 11, 2007 Quote >YES BUT ITS PART OF A CYCLE, IT COOLS AND WARMS AND COOLS AND >WARMS OVER AND OVER Right. We're just forcing that to happen much faster and sooner than it has ever happened before. Boy, God really fucked up big-time if he created us, but wanted a planet that was gonna remain in some sort of idyllic homeostasis, didn't he? I mean, we seem to find a way to go and do EVERY SINGLE THING he specifically wanted us NOT to do! ...and enjoy the shit out of doing it!!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #92 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Please tell us what kind of denier you are, I, II or III? Do you still beat your wife? I don't have one. Now how about an honest answer from you, if you can manage it. You... lecturing me... on honesty.Good one, perfesser. That's definitely a 10 (out of 10) on the irony scale. Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #93 July 11, 2007 (Getting back to the topic of the original posting) QuoteWell, we're big rock singers We got golden fingers And we're loved everywhere we go..... (that sounds like us) We sing about beauty and we sing about truth At ten-thousand dollars a show..... (right) "The Cover of the Rolling Stone" -- Dr Hook & the Medicine Show"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #94 July 11, 2007 Quote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #95 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already. Well good. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #96 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already. Well good. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find. As usual you avoid giving an honest answer to a straightforward question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #97 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Tell you what... you post the definitions for Denier I, II & III... and I'll see which, if any, applies. Bill has done it several times already. Well good. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find. As usual you avoid giving an honest answer to a straightforward question. Sorry dude. It's hard to answer a question, when you don't know what is being asked. How about clarifying what you mean. Then I'll answer the question. Or are you just interested in childish games of "gotcha"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #98 July 11, 2007 >How about clarifying what you mean. Allow me. Do you think the earth's average surface temperature is getting warmer? If so, do you think that man's emissions of CO2, and subsequent increase in greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere, are the primary reason? If so, do you think this might be a good thing overall? (I have no illusions that you will actually answer these questions, but at least they're out there.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #99 July 11, 2007 >God really fucked up big-time if he created us, but wanted a planet >that was gonna remain in some sort of idyllic homeostasis, didn't he? Not at all! Per Ann Coulter, a popular right-wing commentator: "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #100 July 11, 2007 Quote>How about clarifying what you mean. Allow me. Do you think the earth's average surface temperature is getting warmer? Yes. QuoteIf so, do you think that man's emissions of CO2, and subsequent increase in greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere, are the primary reason? I'm not sure. I think it's quite possible, but I'm not convinced. QuoteIf so, do you think this might be a good thing overall? If man-made pollution is the primary cause for rising global temps we should attempt to remedy the situation immediately. Quote(I have no illusions that you will actually answer these questions, but at least they're out there.) Sorry to burst your bubble, sport. Loved the PA, too. So, based on my answers, which kind of "Denier" am I? I, II or III? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
