Remember me
▼ Content

Why the mistrust of the IPCC?



Page 2 of 2<12
28-01-2019 19:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
littleendian wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann

Those laws about energy and radiance don't stand in conflict with the idea that global average temperatures could be rising as suggested by the rising global average temperature estimates based on measurements.


Please tell us if you believe that we should have maintained the temperatures of the 1700's to mid-1800's forever?

If so, why? And if not, why not?

That is an argument to be had once we agree that ACC is happening. I would say that a good start would be to keep the CO2 concentration close to those levels for which the ecosystem evolved, somewhere around 300-350 ppm.

Plants are not evolved for a specific concentration of CO2. Did you know that plants have survived much higher CO2 concentrations than this? Indeed, they do better (if the water is also available).

littleendian wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today.

Possibly. One of the first things man did after discovering fire was to burn down vast quantities of forest.

We actually have more trees in the United States than when Europeans arrived here. You can thank Weyerhauser and Georgia-Pacific for that! They are tree farmers.

littleendian wrote:
Wake wrote:
That being the case and the weather satellite records showing no discernable heating since the launching of these satellites in 1978 what makes you believe that any of the NASA theories should be trusted for anything?

I'm telling you the scientific consensus is that the temperature is rising.

Science doesn't use consensus. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

littleendian wrote:
There will always be one-off studies that indicate something else, that is the process of science trying to find the truth.

If conflicting evidence is found against a theory, that theory is falsified...and utterly destroyed.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 19:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
littleendian wrote:
littleendian wrote:

Wake wrote:
Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today.

Possibly. One of the first things man did after discovering fire was to burn down vast quantities of forest.

That said, I'm not denying natural climate variability. However it is incorrect to say that the Medieval Warm Period was "much warmer than today",

No, it is quite correct. Temperatures recorded in several places in Europe were warmer than today.
littleendian wrote:
the temperature anomaly back then was approximately what we have seen up until now, something like +1 degree C relative to pre-industrial.

The Medieval Warm Period WAS pre-industrial.
littleendian wrote:
However, we are currently accelerating (and banking in) a further temperature increase in the 21st century of potentially 4 or more degrees C through CO2 emissions and the question is: Is that such a wise thing to do?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes.

At least you acknowledge that.
littleendian wrote:
However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked.

Uh...remember the very strong financial interests we were just discussing arguing in favor of the Church of Global Warming?
littleendian wrote:
Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. There is no fossil fuel industry.

Science isn't a 'research' or a study. It isn't an ad campaign by some oil company or the government. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
littleendian wrote:
Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Why do you keep denying science?


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 19:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 19:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
littleendian wrote:
There are many possible explanations for why ice cores could still be a relevant measurement of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations even if the ice is permeable to CO2. It is so a couple of million times less than liquid water, so there is a good chance the CO2 concentration in the ice could still be useful. I'm not having these discussions anymore since I don't share your paranoia regarding the scientific community.


I don't have any paranoia regarding the scientific community. YOU do.

You also just want to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also just want to deny probability and statistical mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 23:58
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(463)
I don't know about the evolution of plants, or just how cold it was during the ice age, but obviously there was food, since life goes on. Seems to reason that the entire planet wasn't a sheet of ice. There had to be some green areas, not just a frozen wasteland.

Plants go dormant for the winter, some during droughts. Seeds can stay viable for a very long time. I've got a strong suspicion, there are many plants, that haven't changed a whole lot, from before the ice age. Thing with plants, is they can adapt to different climates, environments, over time. Not all of them do well, but most can survive. You can't just dig something up, in the northern states, and plant it down here in Florida, but you can gradually bring later generations, moving further south. Won't argue some species need the tropical sun, and don't handle a freeze. And a lot of norther fruit trees need the cold, and dormant period of winter, to fruit the following season. Point is there are a lot of plants, that are flexible, not really evolution
29-01-2019 00:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


The ignorance goes on and on from you doesn't it? Coal and oil are fossilized plants. But then you don't know anything about anything so there's no point in discussions with you.
29-01-2019 02:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't know about the evolution of plants, or just how cold it was during the ice age, but obviously there was food, since life goes on. Seems to reason that the entire planet wasn't a sheet of ice. There had to be some green areas, not just a frozen wasteland.

Plants go dormant for the winter, some during droughts. Seeds can stay viable for a very long time. I've got a strong suspicion, there are many plants, that haven't changed a whole lot, from before the ice age. Thing with plants, is they can adapt to different climates, environments, over time. Not all of them do well, but most can survive. You can't just dig something up, in the northern states, and plant it down here in Florida, but you can gradually bring later generations, moving further south. Won't argue some species need the tropical sun, and don't handle a freeze. And a lot of norther fruit trees need the cold, and dormant period of winter, to fruit the following season. Point is there are a lot of plants, that are flexible, not really evolution


Plants are sensitive to length of day (total sunlight received per day), the amount of water available (some don't like a lot of water, they'll drown), and the amount of nutrients available (such as potassium, nitrogen, etc.). They can also be sensitive to pH of the soil they are planted in, since that determines the availability of various nutrients in the various forms.

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than being damaged from being frozen).

Plants routinely undergo wide variations in CO2 (such as a plant growing beside a busy freeway that is devoid of traffic at night), temperature swings (from day to night, from summer to winter), and even variations in rainfall (summer vs winter).

They survive. A couple of degrees from any global warming claimed by the Church of Global Warming isn't going make much of an impression on a plant (or a person, for that matter).


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2019 02:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


The ignorance goes on and on from you doesn't it?
Starting off if your usual insult fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Coal and oil are fossilized plants.
No, they aren't. Coal is primarily carbon. That is an element of the periodic table. The impurities in coal (that do not burn) are other rock, and embedded fossils).

Oil is a liquid. It is not a fossil.

Both are found well below any fossil layer.

Wake wrote:
But then you don't know anything about anything so there's no point in discussions with you.

And you finish with your usual insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2019 03:52
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(463)
"Fossil Fuels" might not be technically, or politically correct term, but this isn't a classroom, and it's a label that's been used much longer than 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'. I prefer to use 'Fossil Fuels', because it includes both coal, and petroleum, save a lot of typing, and basically anyone who has finished grade school, instantly knows what is meant. There are a whole lot of thinks not accurately labeled, just no correcting them, it's what people are familiar with, and identify with. I fly quadcopters, but it's most commonly called a drone. It's not capable of flying without a pilot on the ground sending instructions. There are several 'Smart' modes, which really aren't all that smart, no obstacle avoidance. I like to build things, mostly electronics. When I was younger, before home computers, it was called hacking, since I salvage parts, modified broken or crappy devices, to get something useful. Now days, hacking is what computer criminals do.

I don't have a lot of schooling, only a 2 year college degree, but I don't have any trouble understand what others are trying to say, if they misuse words, misspell, typos, or any number of grammatical errors. Writing class was far from one of my favorites, think it's the picking at the tiny, insignificant little details I found most insulting. Was never really detailed oriented, functional was just fine, didn't care what it looked like.
29-01-2019 04:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
"Fossil Fuels" might not be technically, or politically correct term, but this isn't a classroom,

True, it isn't. I discourage it's use, however, because it really is just a label for 'bad' energy vs 'good' energy. Grouping energy sources is a mistake in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and it's a label that's been used much longer than 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'.

True. It's been in use as long as the ecologists have tried to label it as 'bad' energy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I prefer to use 'Fossil Fuels', because it includes both coal, and petroleum, save a lot of typing, and basically anyone who has finished grade school, instantly knows what is meant.

Grouping fuels is a mistake to begin with. There is no need to group coal and petroleum together at all. They are completely different kinds of fuel, have completely different characteristics, and burn at different temperatures, leaving behind completely different residue from the burn. They are obtained from completely different sources as well.

Grouping fuels is falling into the trap of the 'bad' fuel and 'good' fuel BS.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There are a whole lot of thinks not accurately labeled, just no correcting them, it's what people are familiar with, and identify with.

Yeah. Like tomatoes being a vegetable (they aren't). The mistake is grouping fuels together at all. There simply is no need for it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I fly quadcopters, but it's most commonly called a drone.

Yeah. I know. Another one that's stupid. Glad to see you know the difference.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not capable of flying without a pilot on the ground sending instructions. There are several 'Smart' modes, which really aren't all that smart, no obstacle avoidance.

You could always just call it a 'copter. You don't have to succumb to the drones writing the news today have become.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I like to build things, mostly electronics.

Can be quite fun, so long as you don't let the magick smoke out!
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was younger, before home computers, it was called hacking, since I salvage parts, modified broken or crappy devices, to get something useful. Now days, hacking is what computer criminals do.

No, cracking is what computer criminals do. Hacking is legal and quite common. A lot of good hackers I know detest what the press has done to the term. Then again, the press is filled with people that figure an airplane will blow up in a big fireball if it runs out of gas and touches the ground at anything besides a prepared runway.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't have a lot of schooling, only a 2 year college degree, but I don't have any trouble understand what others are trying to say, if they misuse words, misspell, typos, or any number of grammatical errors.

I also understand what they mean when the term 'fossil fuel' is being used. I detest it's use. It is unnecessarily grouping fuels into 'bad' and 'good' forms. There is nothing wrong with a 2 year schooling. Indeed, I've seen folks like that run rings around PhD's. You learn things because you want to and have the initiative for self study, not drifting through a bunch of classes half asleep writing some paper that no one will ever read again beyond school and getting a magick PhD at the end of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Writing class was far from one of my favorites, think it's the picking at the tiny, insignificant little details I found most insulting.

Sounds like a terrible writing class instructor. The don't understand that writing is a creative art.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Was never really detailed oriented, functional was just fine, didn't care what it looked like.

And there's nothing wrong with that at all! My whole point is that 'fossil fuels' is not a functional anything. It's just a label to group energy sources into 'bad' and 'good. There is no need to group any fuel or energy source at all...ever.

If you want to talk about carbon based fuels, the term 'carbon fuels' works quite well. It is no longer to say or type, and removes some of the psychology of 'bad' fuels and 'good' fuels.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-01-2019 04:35
29-01-2019 10:35
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(54)
Night, is English your first language? Are you on the autistic spectrum?

I mean no offense by these questions, I would consider myself introvert to the extent that I'm probably mildly on said spectrum "disorder" (I don't feel handicapped by it at all).

But your insistance on certain definitions of words, like "fossil" in "fossil fuels" suggests to me that you don't understand that to most people language is a social game, that for them it is flexible, that for them there is contextual meaning to certain words and that this flexibility can often help getting ideas from one brain to the next (but it can cause confusion as well).

Insisting that "fossil" means one and only one thing no matter what the context of discussion (and that your definition is the only precise formulation of that meaning) makes me wonder whether you're slightly autistic. Again, I'm not implying that this is a "disorder" at all or in any derogatory way whatsoever.
Edited on 29-01-2019 10:37
29-01-2019 18:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you? The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?
29-01-2019 20:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
littleendian wrote:
Night, is English your first language?

Yes.
littleendian wrote:
Are you on the autistic spectrum?

No.
littleendian wrote:
I mean no offense by these questions, I would consider myself introvert to the extent that I'm probably mildly on said spectrum "disorder" (I don't feel handicapped by it at all).

Psychoquackery.
littleendian wrote:
But your insistance on certain definitions of words, like "fossil" in "fossil fuels" suggests to me that you don't understand that to most people language is a social game,

It is also a political game.
littleendian wrote:
that for them it is flexible,

You are trying to justify changing the meanings of words by convenience??
littleendian wrote:
and that this flexibility

The meanings of words do not change by convenience, dude. If that were true, you would have no language. You just have meaningless words.
littleendian wrote:
can often help getting ideas from one brain to the next

No, it would hinder it. There is no meaning to any word under your thinking.
littleendian wrote:
(but it can cause confusion as well).

For the reasons I just described.
littleendian wrote:
Insisting that "fossil" means one and only one thing

It does.
littleendian wrote:
no matter what the context of discussion

No matter the context. It means one and only one thing: the image of an identifiable animal or plant in stone, or the void left by such an image. That is all a fossil is. That is all a fossil has ever been. It does not change due to context.
littleendian wrote:
(and that your definition is the only precise formulation of that meaning)

Not my definitions, dude.
littleendian wrote:
makes me wonder whether you're slightly autistic

Psychoquackery.
littleendian wrote:
Again, I'm not implying that this is a "disorder" at all or in any derogatory way whatsoever.

It is still psychoquackery.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2019 20:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you?

Starting off if your usual insult.
Wake wrote:
The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Coal is not a fossil, Wake. Coal is carbon. An element of the periodic table is not a fossil. The impurities in coal do not burn. That includes any fossils embedded in it.
Wake wrote:
Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?

And ending with your usual insult.


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2019 02:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you?

Starting off if your usual insult.
Wake wrote:
The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Coal is not a fossil, Wake. Coal is carbon. An element of the periodic table is not a fossil. The impurities in coal do not burn. That includes any fossils embedded in it.
Wake wrote:
Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?

And ending with your usual insult.


You are a level of ignorance that is hard to fathom for sane people:

"Vitrinite is one of the primary components of coals and most sedimentary kerogens. Vitrinite is a type of maceral, where "macerals" are organic components of coal analogous to the "minerals" of rocks. Vitrinite has a shiny appearance resembling glass (vitreous). It is derived from the cell-wall material or woody tissue of the plants from which coal was formed. Chemically, it is composed of polymers, cellulose and lignin.

The vitrinite group, which consists of various individual vitrinite macerals, is the most common component of coals. It is also abundant in kerogens that are derived from the same biogenic precursors as coals, namely land plants and humic peats. Vitrinite forms diagenetically by the thermal alteration of lignin and cellulose in plant cell walls. "

Every comment you make you couldn't sound any more stupid because you have hit the wall and it isn't possible to be more stupid that you.
30-01-2019 03:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.


That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.


You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you?

Starting off if your usual insult.
Wake wrote:
The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Coal is not a fossil, Wake. Coal is carbon. An element of the periodic table is not a fossil. The impurities in coal do not burn. That includes any fossils embedded in it.
Wake wrote:
Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?

And ending with your usual insult.



Wake wrote:

...deleted insult, Holy Quote, insult...

Coal is carbon, Wake. The impurities in coal do not burn. Carbon is an element, not a fossil.


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2019 17:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Into the Night wrote: Coal is carbon, Wake. The impurities in coal do not burn. Carbon is an element, not a fossil.

Your body is made up basically of carbon. Does that mean that you are an element or that you are composed of element formed into compounds?

You are not stupid nor ignorant - you are simply insane and you make that more clear with each posting. You need to consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible before someone near and dear to you says the wrong thing and you murder them.
30-01-2019 19:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Coal is carbon, Wake. The impurities in coal do not burn. Carbon is an element, not a fossil.

Your body is made up basically of carbon.

WRONG. The human body is made up basically out of water. It also contains carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, copper, iodine, fluorine, zinc, chromium, selenium, manganese, molybdenum, and other stuff all arranged in various salts, and other compounds.
Wake wrote:
Does that mean that you are an element or that you are composed of element formed into compounds?

Much more than that, Wake. I am alive. Just a pile of these elements and compounds mixed with that much water isn't life, Wake.
Wake wrote:
You are not stupid nor ignorant - you are simply insane and you make that more clear with each posting. You need to consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible before someone near and dear to you says the wrong thing and you murder them.

You really need to get control of your anger, Wake. Insult fallacies.


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2019 22:32
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(463)
Actually, carbon is the basis of life. Organic chemical, are carbon compounds that make up every cell, hormone, and enzyme. No carbon, no life. This is one of the things I find disturbing about messing with CO2. The carbon, that gives us life, comes from plants, either by consuming them directly, or the food animals we eat. Plants get that carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere. As the population continues to grow, at an alarming rate... We need more CO2, for the plants, to feed everybody, and everything else. Messing with CO2, is messing with life on this planet. Climate and weather might get rough and unpleasant occasionally (only got up to 60F today), but starving the population is a greater sin.
30-01-2019 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Actually, carbon is the basis of life.
So is water, even more so.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Organic chemical, are carbon compounds that make up every cell, hormone, and enzyme.
Those enzymes are not just carbon either.
HarveyH55 wrote:
No carbon, no life.
No water, no life either.
HarveyH55 wrote:
This is one of the things I find disturbing about messing with CO2.
The carbon, that gives us life, comes from plants, either by consuming them directly, or the food animals we eat.
Plants get that carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere.
As the population continues to grow, at an alarming rate...
We need more CO2, for the plants, to feed everybody, and everything else.
Messing with CO2, is messing with life on this planet.

An interesting argument...and a reasonable one.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate and weather might get rough and unpleasant occasionally (only got up to 60F today), but starving the population is a greater sin.

Weather already occasionally gets rough. It has things like tornadoes, hurricanes, hailstorms that produce large and damaging hail, high winds that knock down trees and damage powerl lines and structures, torrential rains, and hot days that buckle roads, tracks, and bridges.

Climate is weather over a long time. All of these events take a short time. They are not climate.

CO2 does not affect any of it.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2019 00:34
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(150)
That carbon argument of Harvey's is actually quite interesting...
31-01-2019 00:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
gfm7175 wrote:
That carbon argument of Harvey's is actually quite interesting...


Yeah. I've never heard it before either. Well...I have...sort of.

The argument that reducing CO2 would actually harm and possibly kill us is not a new one. His way of presenting that basic argument is what is new.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Why the mistrust of the IPCC?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack019-04-2019 16:33
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
15 ppm O3 capture 98% of UV so what makes IPCC think 15 ppm CO2 don't capture 98% of those 3 bands of019-04-2019 16:27
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
China uses coal for most of its electricity. Should China leave UN if IPCC orders China to925-02-2019 23:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact