brenthutch 444 #1 October 15, 2011 When the left leaning Huffington Post, in their "Green" section calls BS on AGW, it is game set and match for All Gore and the bong water brigade. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/conrad-black/global-warming-science_b_1007166.html?ir=Green Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 October 15, 2011 Uh, you might want to google the author before you go on about the left saying anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #3 October 15, 2011 If it was vetted by the huffpo it must have some credibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #4 October 15, 2011 Conrad Black is the poster child for the arrogant right wing rich in Canada. He built a media empire as a sort of Rupert Murdoch lite (albeit a more thoughtful, intellectual one) who politicized Canada's press like Fox did for the American media. He is currently serving time in the US for defrauding shareholders of his US companies and now spends his time writing when not helping his fellow inmates get their grade 12. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 October 15, 2011 QuoteIf it was vetted by the huffpo it must have some credibility. Not as much as you'd think. Since being sold to AOL, it's mostly a blog aggregator and there's not a lot of oversight as to what people write. All AOL seems to care about is getting hits.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #6 October 17, 2011 QuoteIf it was vetted by the huffpo it must have some credibility. Like This? And, of course, www.care2.com/causes/rick-perry-officials-altered-scientific-study-removed-climate-change-mentions.html www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?newsfeed=true... 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
billvon 3,120 #7 October 17, 2011 "There's only one problem with AGW - it ended in 1998! 2005! 2010! 2011!" It will be fun to watch the deniers proclaim it again in 2015, and then in 2022. "Now AGW is REALLY dead. Really. This time we're _totally_ serious." Perhaps they could resurrect the Iraqi Information Minister to make the announcement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #8 October 17, 2011 From: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/19/the-carbon-cults-price-signal/1 Quote Roughly what percentage of the earth's atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide? A) 52% B) 31% C) 17% D) 9% E) 4% If you answered D, 9%, you're…wrong. In fact if you answered any of the above, you're not just wrong, but wrong by two or three orders of magnitude. The answer is that the earth's atmosphere is less than 390 parts per million, or less than 0.04%, CO2. Yes, this is up from about 320 parts per million, or .032% CO2 fifty years ago, but it is an astonishingly low number to most whose only contact with "climate science" is through what they read in the papers. Global alarmists want us to believe the Earth's ecosystem is going to collapse because of a 0.008% increase in CO2, fro 0.032% to 0.04%? Seems a bit "chicken little"... As I've stated before, I'm not advocating wanton pollution of the Earth. But, when viewed in the above context, AGW alarmists look ridiculous.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 October 17, 2011 Quote Global alarmists want us to believe the Earth's ecosystem is going to collapse because of a 0.008% increase in CO2, fro 0.032% to 0.04%? Seems a bit "chicken little"... actually, that would represent a 22% increase. And 50 years ago may not be the appropriate starting point - it's been ramping up since the start of the Industrial Revolution. As for the smallness of the value 390 per million - it took a lot less than than in CFCs to eat away at the ozone layer. And such a dosage of nerve gas would do fine at killing you. More reasonable attacks would focus on the historical levels, or to note how often the graphs showing CO2 levels start the Y axis around 300 as to make the recent change seem like a quintupling rather than a 20some percent gain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #10 October 17, 2011 Quote ...0.008%... vs. 22% increase. Dealing with percentages of percentages can be confusing. Increasing the percentage amount by 0.008% is negligible. Saying it increased by 22% makes it look more scary than it should.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 October 17, 2011 QuotePerhaps they could resurrect the Iraqi Information Minister to make the announcement. I don't think the skeptics can beat the salary the alarmists are already paying him.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #12 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuote ...0.008%... vs. 22% increase. Dealing with percentages of percentages can be confusing. Increasing the percentage amount by 0.008% is negligible. Saying it increased by 22% makes it look more scary than it should. Thanks for advertising your complete ignorance of physics and chemistry.... 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
StreetScooby 5 #13 October 17, 2011 Quote Thanks for advertising your complete ignorance of physics and chemistry. You ASSume people listen to what comes out of that HOLE in your head you think of as your mouth. You revel in that ignorance, and it's the best you can do.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #14 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuote Thanks for advertising your complete ignorance of physics and chemistry. You ASSume people listen to what comes out of that HOLE in your head you think of as your mouth. You revel in that ignorance, and it's the best you can do. OK, Genius, tell us how much the absorption coefficient across the solar spectrum increased on account of what you claim is a negligible increase in CO2 levels.... 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
darora15 0 #15 October 17, 2011 Actually, I think kelpdiver is correct on this one. The .032% and .040% represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So that is [CO2]/[atmosphere volume]. The concentration of CO2 went up from .00032 to .00040 (whatever units they are). So, you can say the concentration went up by .00008. Or you can say the amount of change increased by 25%.Paddle faster....I hear banjo music Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #16 October 17, 2011 And your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #17 October 17, 2011 QuoteActually, I think kelpdiver is correct on this one. The .032% and .040% represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So that is [CO2]/[atmosphere volume]. The concentration of CO2 went up from .00032 to .00040 (whatever units they are). So, you can say the concentration went up by .00008. Or you can say the amount of change increased by 25%. Or you can say it goes up by 30,000,000,000 tons each year.... 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
Andy9o8 2 #18 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote ...0.008%... vs. 22% increase. Dealing with percentages of percentages can be confusing. Increasing the percentage amount by 0.008% is negligible. Saying it increased by 22% makes it look more scary than it should. Thanks for advertising your complete ignorance of physics and chemistry. I always wonder why people do that. I, for example, keep mine quite well hidden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #19 October 17, 2011 Quote And your one warning. Cut it out. My warning???? So kallend gets a free pass?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darora15 0 #20 October 17, 2011 Yes, you can. That CO2 change could make a big difference in UV ray absorption.Paddle faster....I hear banjo music Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #21 October 17, 2011 Quote And your one warning. Cut it out. My warning?!?! And kallend gets a free pass? How are you defining PAs?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #22 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuotePerhaps they could resurrect the Iraqi Information Minister to make the announcement. I don't think the skeptics can beat the salary the alarmists are already paying him. Are Exxon-Mobil and the Kochs short of money now?... 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
mnealtx 0 #23 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps they could resurrect the Iraqi Information Minister to make the announcement. I don't think the skeptics can beat the salary the alarmists are already paying him. Are Exxon-Mobil and the Kochs short of money now? They can't match the 70+ BILLION that the alarmists have raked in.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #24 October 17, 2011 I don't know if you're right or wrong. Not my field. I do know that there isn't a thing any of us can do about it. If one were to sue, the case would be tied up forever. Class action cert. and all the other corporate lawyer trix would delay the case interminably. While the rest of the not so PC world kept right on doing what they do with their subsistence level of life. Arguing over tiny numbers is fruitless. Arguing over the price of jet A and jump tix is a better topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuote ...0.008%... vs. 22% increase. Dealing with percentages of percentages can be confusing. Increasing the percentage amount by 0.008% is negligible. Saying it increased by 22% makes it look more scary than it should. no, saying it increased by 22% is the most honest of the options available. Your method: increase of .008% minimizes the impact of the statement, makes it seem insignificant. Put it this way - what would happen if the c02 level now declined by a whopping .039%? We'd be at zero, which means all plants would die and us sooner after. OTOH, Kallend's version, 30 billion tons, tends to overstate the impact as this is not a quantity that humans deal with, so it looks freaking huge. Without knowing the denominator, you have no way to determine the significance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
