| CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA21-06-2017 17:16 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
I am sharing this thread with various individuals. Mr. Vanderbeck who publishes the Appalachian News-Express in Pikeville, Ky. knows that I was initially interested in carbon capture and that if a more economical means of reducing harmful emissions from coal fired power plants might help to save some jobs in Eastern Kentucky.
This is where the atmospheric forcing experiment might help people in my state while helping countries like China to improve their air quality.
With atmospheric forcing if CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2 can be demonstrated then it might be possible to demonstrate CH2O + CH2O > CH4 and CO2. If so then 2 molecules of both CO2 and H2O would allow for 2 molecules of O2 and one molecule each of CO2 and CH4.
Then when the following statement by the IPCC is considered then someone like Dr. Guzman of the University of Kentucky might be able to say if CO2 and H2O levels decrease while O2 levels increase supporting the Chapman Cycle https://goo.gl/images/ZqG7xA. If so then it would be known how record levels of CO2 and CH4 are involved with supporting stratospheric ozone levels. And Dr. Guzman is aware that I believe that a respected scientist such as himself would be better qualified to make such determinations and if other research might come from this. And at the same time the importance of the ozone layer might be considered as to what levels of CO2 are needed relative to maintaining a healthy ozone layer.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
Jim
the Chapman cycle link works if copied and pasted and if it's clicked on seems to be a dead link.
Edited on 21-06-2017 17:27 |
| 21-06-2017 19:53 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
I am sharing this thread with various individuals. Mr. Vanderbeck who publishes the Appalachian News-Express in Pikeville, Ky. knows that I was initially interested in carbon capture and that if a more economical means of reducing harmful emissions from coal fired power plants might help to save some jobs in Eastern Kentucky.
This is where the atmospheric forcing experiment might help people in my state while helping countries like China to improve their air quality.
With atmospheric forcing if CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2 can be demonstrated then it might be possible to demonstrate CH2O + CH2O > CH4 and CO2. If so then 2 molecules of both CO2 and H2O would allow for 2 molecules of O2 and one molecule each of CO2 and CH4.
Then when the following statement by the IPCC is considered then someone like Dr. Guzman of the University of Kentucky might be able to say if CO2 and H2O levels decrease while O2 levels increase supporting the Chapman Cycle https://goo.gl/images/ZqG7xA. If so then it would be known how record levels of CO2 and CH4 are involved with supporting stratospheric ozone levels. And Dr. Guzman is aware that I believe that a respected scientist such as himself would be better qualified to make such determinations and if other research might come from this. And at the same time the importance of the ozone layer might be considered as to what levels of CO2 are needed relative to maintaining a healthy ozone layer.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
Jim
the Chapman cycle link works if copied and pasted and if it's clicked on seems to be a dead link.
The Chapman cycle does not involve either carbon dioxide nor methane.
Ozone levels are not affected by the presence of carbon dioxide nor methane.
Ozone is not being depleted.
If you can find a cheaper way to clean up coal plant emissions, go for it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-06-2017 20:00 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
James_ wrote: Mr. Vanderbeck who publishes the Appalachian News-Express in Pikeville, Ky. knows that I was initially interested in carbon capture and that if a more economical means of reducing harmful emissions from coal fired power plants might help to save some jobs in Eastern Kentucky.
If you want to reduce "harmful" emissions from coal, why are you trying to capture the CO2? It's not harmful.
Shouldn't you be focused on soot capture?
James_ wrote: This is where the atmospheric forcing experiment might help people in my state while helping countries like China to improve their air quality.
There is no such thing as "atmospheric forcing." No scientific experiment can be based on the presumption of something that does not exist.
James_ wrote: With atmospheric forcing if CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2 can be demonstrated then it might be possible to demonstrate CH2O + CH2O > CH4 and CO2. If so then 2 molecules of both CO2 and H2O would allow for 2 molecules of O2 and one molecule each of CO2 and CH4.
You are describing chemistry research, not an experiment of something nonexistent.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 22-06-2017 01:43 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
With carbon capture it hasn't been determined the amount of emissions necessary to maintain a healthy ozone layer.
The purpose of the experiment is to see if atmospheric forcing does happen. If so then scientists would understand the relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone. This would be important.
Soot capture as well as lead and arsenic would be a part of harmful emissions. Since soot tends to be carbon rich it might be able to be reprocessed and added to the coke mix.
Jim |
| 22-06-2017 02:49 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
With carbon capture it hasn't been determined the amount of emissions necessary to maintain a healthy ozone layer.
Carbon has nothing to do with ozone.
James_ wrote:
The purpose of the experiment is to see if atmospheric forcing does happen. If so then scientists would understand the relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone. This would be important.
We already know the chemistry of carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. We already know there is no relationship between ozone and carbon.
James_ wrote:
Soot capture as well as lead and arsenic would be a part of harmful emissions
Which we already do. If you capture it cheaper than the way it's done now, go for it.
James_ wrote:
Since soot tends to be carbon rich it might be able to be reprocessed and added to the coke mix.
It already is.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 22-06-2017 02:55 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
There is one good reason for this experiment (floating up an under inflated weather balloon filled with N, O2, CO2 & H2O) to be tried, no one has tried it yet. Then if a scientist (chemist ?) is involved and thinks it's more than molecules bumping into each other then the entire process might be named after it's discoverers.
Jim
p.s., IBdaMANN,
After the first of the month I'll be able to start working on a historical project that I've been pursuing. It's wood working and if that works then this is something I won't worry about. You are right about something though. People shouldn't complicate their lives by trying something that hasn't already been done. And even like my wood working project which has been done it's not for the faint of heart.
Edited on 22-06-2017 03:12 |
| 22-06-2017 04:51 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
James_ wrote: The purpose of the experiment is to see if atmospheric forcing does happen.
You have never defined "atmospheric forcing." It otherwise does not exist in science.
How are you going to look for that which is not defined?
Your entire thesis is currently unfalsifiable.
James_ wrote: If so then scientists would understand the relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone. This would be important.
Chemistry already answers this question. There is no such relationship.
James_ wrote: Soot capture as well as lead and arsenic would be a part of harmful emissions. Since soot tends to be carbon rich it might be able to be reprocessed and added to the coke mix.
OK. I'm not so certain that can be done but maybe.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 22-06-2017 04:54 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Since soot tends to be carbon rich it might be able to be reprocessed and added to the coke mix.
It already is.
Wouldn't soot be an impurity?
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 22-06-2017 05:29 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: The purpose of the experiment is to see if atmospheric forcing does happen.
You have never defined "atmospheric forcing." It otherwise does not exist in science.
How are you going to look for that which is not defined?
Your entire thesis is currently unfalsifiable.
James_ wrote: If so then scientists would understand the relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone. This would be important.
Chemistry already answers this question. There is no such relationship.
James_ wrote: Soot capture as well as lead and arsenic would be a part of harmful emissions. Since soot tends to be carbon rich it might be able to be reprocessed and added to the coke mix.
OK. I'm not so certain that can be done but maybe.
.
Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ? An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has. If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojouleshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)
Edited on 22-06-2017 05:56 |
| 22-06-2017 07:07 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 22-06-2017 15:13 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
Climate Forcing
Climate forcings are a major cause of climate change. A climate forcing is any influence on climate that originates from outside the climate system itself. The climate system includes the oceans, land surface, cryosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere.
ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing
As it turns out, a natural change as I describe is not atmospheric forcing. It seems science hasn't consider that molecules.might change structure to seek an equilibrium that both thermodynamics and conservation of momentum suggests that energy or matter in a goven field must pursue.
As for cooling emissions it would be worth money but the principle would need to be demonstrated so that it could be developed.
In Ky. they say other states pursue innovation and new ideas because they are a conservative state. This means they only know the value of what other people have.
If the experiment works then they might consider it atmospheric forcing because it would change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
Edited on 22-06-2017 15:18 |
| 22-06-2017 17:01 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
Edited on 22-06-2017 17:10 |
| 22-06-2017 20:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-06-2017 23:15 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
And if my experiment works it will prove you wrong, why you would be against anything I am doing. Still, Sen. McConnell and the congressmen in Ky.'s 5th and 6th districts have little interest in co2, etc. I think Pres. Trump might be showing true Republican sentiment, lax regulations and little regard for the environment. As for coal jobs in Ky. doubt they care. |
| 23-06-2017 01:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
And if my experiment works it will prove you wrong, why you would be against anything I am doing. Still, Sen. McConnell and the congressmen in Ky.'s 5th and 6th districts have little interest in co2, etc. I think Pres. Trump might be showing true Republican sentiment, lax regulations and little regard for the environment. As for coal jobs in Ky. doubt they care.
Your bigotry is showing. It is not welcome here.
Some Republicans don't care about the environment. Most do.
Some Democrats care about the environment. Most don't. They just say they do for political reasons.
People around me here in Seattle, for example, talk about cleaning up Lake Washington and Puget Sound.
I actually did. Before my work, you could smell Lake Washington from Issaquah, a town 10 miles away. It was caused by raw sewage being pumped into the Lake.
Me and my family were a major force in creating Metro, which provides county-wide bus service and county-wide sewage treatment service (among other things).
Later, my instrumentation in that wastewater treatment plant improved it to tertiary treatment. The effluent from that plant is now potable water. THAT is what now drains to Puget Sound.
Don't tell me conservatives don't care about the environment!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 23-06-2017 03:49 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
And if my experiment works it will prove you wrong, why you would be against anything I am doing. Still, Sen. McConnell and the congressmen in Ky.'s 5th and 6th districts have little interest in co2, etc. I think Pres. Trump might be showing true Republican sentiment, lax regulations and little regard for the environment. As for coal jobs in Ky. doubt they care.
Your bigotry is showing. It is not welcome here.
Some Republicans don't care about the environment. Most do.
Some Democrats care about the environment. Most don't. They just say they do for political reasons.
People around me here in Seattle, for example, talk about cleaning up Lake Washington and Puget Sound.
I actually did. Before my work, you could smell Lake Washington from Issaquah, a town 10 miles away. It was caused by raw sewage being pumped into the Lake.
Me and my family were a major force in creating Metro, which provides county-wide bus service and county-wide sewage treatment service (among other things).
Later, my instrumentation in that wastewater treatment plant improved it to tertiary treatment. The effluent from that plant is now potable water. THAT is what now drains to Puget Sound.
Don't tell me conservatives don't care about the environment!
Is that all you have left, calling me a.bigot ? Isn't the Republican that said there is a War On Coal ? Isn't it a Republican who is trying to shut down the EPA ?
Also most of what you claim that you and your family did is just that, claims.
I doubt what you say about Lake Washington is true. This means that Medina, Wa. which is on the eastern shore of Lake Washington and has the highest income per capita in the U,S,A, because people like Bill and Melinda Gates live there would've had to tolerate smelling that raw sewage. Kind of why I think you're lying.
And your post like Wakes are signs of jealousy. I should be flattered but I'm not. You two don't seem to understand that a better understanding of climate change is needed because we do need to know if we are effecting natural climate change. |
| 23-06-2017 10:26 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
And if my experiment works it will prove you wrong, why you would be against anything I am doing. Still, Sen. McConnell and the congressmen in Ky.'s 5th and 6th districts have little interest in co2, etc. I think Pres. Trump might be showing true Republican sentiment, lax regulations and little regard for the environment. As for coal jobs in Ky. doubt they care.
Your bigotry is showing. It is not welcome here.
Some Republicans don't care about the environment. Most do.
Some Democrats care about the environment. Most don't. They just say they do for political reasons.
People around me here in Seattle, for example, talk about cleaning up Lake Washington and Puget Sound.
I actually did. Before my work, you could smell Lake Washington from Issaquah, a town 10 miles away. It was caused by raw sewage being pumped into the Lake.
Me and my family were a major force in creating Metro, which provides county-wide bus service and county-wide sewage treatment service (among other things).
Later, my instrumentation in that wastewater treatment plant improved it to tertiary treatment. The effluent from that plant is now potable water. THAT is what now drains to Puget Sound.
Don't tell me conservatives don't care about the environment!
Is that all you have left, calling me a.bigot ?
You made a compositional error involving people as a class. That is a bigot. I suggest you refrain from it.
James_ wrote:
Isn't the Republican that said there is a War On Coal ? Some have, some have not. You are still being a bigot. It was a Democrat that STARTED the war on coal, and openly called it that.
James_ wrote:
Isn't it a Republican who is trying to shut down the EPA ? No one is trying to shut down the EPA. I would, however, given the chance. The government has no authority there, and the EPA has not solved any environmental problem since it was created.
James_ wrote:
Also most of what you claim that you and your family did is just that, claims. Indeed they are. I'm proud of what we've done.
James_ wrote:
I doubt what you say about Lake Washington is true. Too bad. It is.
James_ wrote:
This means that Medina, Wa. which is on the eastern shore of Lake Washington and has the highest income per capita in the U,S,A, because people like Bill and Melinda Gates live there would've had to tolerate smelling that raw sewage. Medina was not always a desirable place to live.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I think you're lying. You are making a fallacy known as presentism, Then calling people a liar. You weren't there. I was.
James_ wrote:
And your post like Wakes are signs of jealousy. You can drop the psychobabble as well.
James_ wrote:
I should be flattered but I'm not. Don't bother.
James_ wrote:
You two don't seem to understand that a better understanding of climate change is needed because we do need to know if we are effecting natural climate change.
Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
Just what, exactly, IS 'climate change'?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-06-2017 17:05 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
And if my experiment works it will prove you wrong, why you would be against anything I am doing. Still, Sen. McConnell and the congressmen in Ky.'s 5th and 6th districts have little interest in co2, etc. I think Pres. Trump might be showing true Republican sentiment, lax regulations and little regard for the environment. As for coal jobs in Ky. doubt they care.
Your bigotry is showing. It is not welcome here.
Some Republicans don't care about the environment. Most do.
Some Democrats care about the environment. Most don't. They just say they do for political reasons.
People around me here in Seattle, for example, talk about cleaning up Lake Washington and Puget Sound.
I actually did. Before my work, you could smell Lake Washington from Issaquah, a town 10 miles away. It was caused by raw sewage being pumped into the Lake.
Me and my family were a major force in creating Metro, which provides county-wide bus service and county-wide sewage treatment service (among other things).
Later, my instrumentation in that wastewater treatment plant improved it to tertiary treatment. The effluent from that plant is now potable water. THAT is what now drains to Puget Sound.
Don't tell me conservatives don't care about the environment!
Is that all you have left, calling me a.bigot ?
You made a compositional error involving people as a class. That is a bigot. I suggest you refrain from it.
James_ wrote:
Isn't the Republican that said there is a War On Coal ? Some have, some have not. You are still being a bigot. It was a Democrat that STARTED the war on coal, and openly called it that.
James_ wrote:
Isn't it a Republican who is trying to shut down the EPA ? No one is trying to shut down the EPA. I would, however, given the chance. The government has no authority there, and the EPA has not solved any environmental problem since it was created.
James_ wrote:
Also most of what you claim that you and your family did is just that, claims. Indeed they are. I'm proud of what we've done.
James_ wrote:
I doubt what you say about Lake Washington is true. Too bad. It is.
James_ wrote:
This means that Medina, Wa. which is on the eastern shore of Lake Washington and has the highest income per capita in the U,S,A, because people like Bill and Melinda Gates live there would've had to tolerate smelling that raw sewage. Medina was not always a desirable place to live.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I think you're lying. You are making a fallacy known as presentism, Then calling people a liar. You weren't there. I was.
James_ wrote:
And your post like Wakes are signs of jealousy. You can drop the psychobabble as well.
James_ wrote:
I should be flattered but I'm not. Don't bother.
James_ wrote:
You two don't seem to understand that a better understanding of climate change is needed because we do need to know if we are effecting natural climate change.
Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
Just what, exactly, IS 'climate change'?
I think you're ignorant. You claimed to have cleaned up Lake Washington while offering only your word. Like I said I lived in Seattle for over 25 years. What's your name ? |
| 23-06-2017 18:10 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
@All,
When Into the Dark Ages says that he cleaned up Lake Washington what he is really saying is that his employer repaired a waste treatment plant.
And he has said that I am a bigot because I've been in actual contact with the Republican party to try my experiment in the hopes of showing we need co2 in our atmosphere and that a significant lowering of co2 emissions could create problems. Until we understand co2's actual role in our atmosphere we probably don't need to worry about lowering co2 emissions.
I got a Who Cares from the Republican party. And as into the dar ages says, he's not a moderator and my bigotry isn't welcome.
I'm not a Republlican, have no need to support their party line. |
| 23-06-2017 19:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Since all science is falsifiable does science matter ?
Science is a collection of very powerful tools. Ask any engineer.
James_ wrote: An example is the Law of Gravity yet no one can prove gravity's real. After all it's effect can't be replicated only simulated. So why quantify something's effect when it's cause is unknown ?
The objective of science is to predict nature. Where would rocket science be without the ability to accurately predict the force of gravity?
James_ wrote: As for pollution from power plants, it is possible to cool the emissions which are about 300 to less than 125. Doing that would allow for filtering out soot and heavy metals. The problem is they'd have to consider trying something new which won't happen.
If you develop a more economical method then you'll make a mint.
James_ wrote: That's where the atmospheric forcing experiment comes in, it's cheap. My definition [of "atmospheric forcing"] is 2 molecules colliding which allows 2 new molecules to occur.
Doesn't that fall under chemistry which has no "forcings" of any kind?
James_ wrote: H2O has about 1/3 the kj's of kinetic energy to break the double covalent bonds that CO2 has.
H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity.
James_ wrote:If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases,
Yes. Absolutely.
.
IBdaMann says >> H2O's amount of kinetic energy is not fixed. It all depends on its velocity. <<
I said >> If water vapor accelerates then it's kinetic energy increases, mv = kj (mass x velocity = kilojoules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) <<
last line of my posting on 21-06-2017 22:29
at IBdaMann, this is what I have to tolerate. Treatment for cancer caused problems. Doctors tell me I have symptoms and that as long as I live in the U.S. that is all they will acknowledge. After all, since I am not a doctor I have to accept what they say. This image was taken at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky. and they believe that it is acceptable and shows absolutely no problems what so ever. Baptist Health who treated me for cancer tells me to take laxatives because all I have are symptoms. And at no time am I being abused by the medical community because they care more about themselves and each other than they do their patients. My wood working hobby might give me the opportunity to move to another country where doctors there would be willing to resolve my situation.
This is where science is a peaceful means of becoming someone who would deserve to have a life in America but since I am a disabled veteran (significant hearing loss) I have no right to a life in the U.S., kind of why I don't have one.
https://goo.gl/photos/PXH5qFJ8eRXbBhtZ9
No excuse. Stop whining.
Science is a a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not scientists, doctors, universities, credentials, consensus, nor does it use any supporting evidence for any of its theories.
Your condition does not change what science is.
There are no 'forcings' in the atmosphere. Carbon compounds are not a 'force'. They are a material. None of them have anything to do with ozone.
And if my experiment works it will prove you wrong, why you would be against anything I am doing. Still, Sen. McConnell and the congressmen in Ky.'s 5th and 6th districts have little interest in co2, etc. I think Pres. Trump might be showing true Republican sentiment, lax regulations and little regard for the environment. As for coal jobs in Ky. doubt they care.
Your bigotry is showing. It is not welcome here.
Some Republicans don't care about the environment. Most do.
Some Democrats care about the environment. Most don't. They just say they do for political reasons.
People around me here in Seattle, for example, talk about cleaning up Lake Washington and Puget Sound.
I actually did. Before my work, you could smell Lake Washington from Issaquah, a town 10 miles away. It was caused by raw sewage being pumped into the Lake.
Me and my family were a major force in creating Metro, which provides county-wide bus service and county-wide sewage treatment service (among other things).
Later, my instrumentation in that wastewater treatment plant improved it to tertiary treatment. The effluent from that plant is now potable water. THAT is what now drains to Puget Sound.
Don't tell me conservatives don't care about the environment!
Is that all you have left, calling me a.bigot ?
You made a compositional error involving people as a class. That is a bigot. I suggest you refrain from it.
James_ wrote:
Isn't the Republican that said there is a War On Coal ? Some have, some have not. You are still being a bigot. It was a Democrat that STARTED the war on coal, and openly called it that.
James_ wrote:
Isn't it a Republican who is trying to shut down the EPA ? No one is trying to shut down the EPA. I would, however, given the chance. The government has no authority there, and the EPA has not solved any environmental problem since it was created.
James_ wrote:
Also most of what you claim that you and your family did is just that, claims. Indeed they are. I'm proud of what we've done.
James_ wrote:
I doubt what you say about Lake Washington is true. Too bad. It is.
James_ wrote:
This means that Medina, Wa. which is on the eastern shore of Lake Washington and has the highest income per capita in the U,S,A, because people like Bill and Melinda Gates live there would've had to tolerate smelling that raw sewage. Medina was not always a desirable place to live.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I think you're lying. You are making a fallacy known as presentism, Then calling people a liar. You weren't there. I was.
James_ wrote:
And your post like Wakes are signs of jealousy. You can drop the psychobabble as well.
James_ wrote:
I should be flattered but I'm not. Don't bother.
James_ wrote:
You two don't seem to understand that a better understanding of climate change is needed because we do need to know if we are effecting natural climate change.
Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
Just what, exactly, IS 'climate change'?
I think you're ignorant. You claimed to have cleaned up Lake Washington while offering only your word. Like I said I lived in Seattle for over 25 years. What's your name ?
Someone that has lived in Seattle for 50 years.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-06-2017 19:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
@All,
When Into the Dark Ages says that he cleaned up Lake Washington what he is really saying is that his employer repaired a waste treatment plant.
No, I developed the instrument that provided that treatment. My and my family also BUILT that plant.
James_ wrote:
And he has said that I am a bigot because I've been in actual contact with the Republican party No, you're a bigot because you keep making compositional errors involving people.
Not all Republicans are against the Church of Global Warming.
Not all Republicans are despicable people that are out to destroy the environment (personally, I don't know of any).
I do support Trump's cut in the budget for the EPA. They haven't solved any environmental problems. They are a waste of money, and the government has no authority there.
James_ wrote:
to try my experiment in the hopes of showing we need co2 in our atmosphere and that a significant lowering of co2 emissions could create problems.
Why would you ask politicians to conduct an experiment for you? A fair number of these guys don't understand you can't take a train to Hawaii.
James_ wrote:
Until we understand co2's actual role in our atmosphere we probably don't need to worry about lowering co2 emissions.
CO2's role in the atmosphere? Are you sure it's learning it lines correctly?
James_ wrote:
I got a Who Cares from the Republican party. Don't blame them.
James_ wrote:
And as into the dar ages says, he's not a moderator and my bigotry isn't welcome. I am not a moderator and bigotry is never welcome...anywhere.
James_ wrote:
I'm not a Republlican, have no need to support their party line.
Obvious.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-06-2017 20:27 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
Calling someone a bigot for not being supportive of the Republican party is a new low for Republicans but am not surprised
. So much for 1st Amendment Rights. |
| 23-06-2017 20:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Calling someone a bigot for not being supportive of the Republican party is a new low for Republicans but am not surprised
. So much for 1st Amendment Rights.
Not why I called you a bigot. You made compositional errors involving people as a class.
The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights. It only acknowledges them. It describes the powers of the federal government. Outside those powers the federal government has no authority. The 1st amendment only reiterates that.
I need not provide you with any rights. I can't. I also cannot take away your ability to believe in what you want, say what you want, or think what you want.
The 1st amendment only reiterates the lack of authority the government has to punish you for believing in what you want, say what you want, or think what you want.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-06-2017 01:27 |
James_★★★★★
(2208) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Calling someone a bigot for not being supportive of the Republican party is a new low for Republicans but am not surprised
. So much for 1st Amendment Rights.
Not why I called you a bigot. You made compositional errors involving people as a class.
The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights. It only acknowledges them. It describes the powers of the federal government. Outside those powers the federal government has no authority. The 1st amendment only reiterates that.
I need not provide you with any rights. I can't. I also cannot take away your ability to believe in what you want, say what you want, or think what you want.
The 1st amendment only reiterates the lack of authority the government has to punish you for believing in what you want, say what you want, or think what you want.
It's actually the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution. At the same time you think I'm a bigot for working towards innovation instead of saying we don't need the EPA. I'm a Democrat raised by a Norwegian socialist. I think the environment can be protected at the same time it doesn't cost businesses money. I am under no illusion that most businesses would work in a landfill because they're in business to make money. Kind of why most businesses oppose any type of regulation. Having rules to follow means that profits have to be earned. |
| 24-06-2017 22:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Calling someone a bigot for not being supportive of the Republican party is a new low for Republicans but am not surprised
. So much for 1st Amendment Rights.
Not why I called you a bigot. You made compositional errors involving people as a class.
The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights. It only acknowledges them. It describes the powers of the federal government. Outside those powers the federal government has no authority. The 1st amendment only reiterates that.
I need not provide you with any rights. I can't. I also cannot take away your ability to believe in what you want, say what you want, or think what you want.
The 1st amendment only reiterates the lack of authority the government has to punish you for believing in what you want, say what you want, or think what you want.
It's actually the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution of the United States, dumbass.
James_ wrote:
At the same time you think I'm a bigot Because you keep making compositional errors involving people as a class (Republicans).
James_ wrote:
for working towards innovation I welcome innovation. My business depends on it.
James_ wrote:
instead of saying we don't need the EPA. We don't.
James_ wrote:
I'm a Democrat Obvious.
James_ wrote:
raised by a Norwegian socialist. I don't care who indoctrinated you.
James_ wrote:
I think the environment can be protected at the same time it doesn't cost businesses money. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't.
James_ wrote:
I am under no illusion that most businesses would work in a landfill because they're in business to make money. Working in a landfill IS a business, and can be a very profitable one. Most other businesses aren't based there, since it is bad for their business.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why most businesses oppose any type of regulation. They don't. Businesses tend to agree that there should be someone around like the police to help reduce crime. That's a regulation that creates a police force. They like roads and public ways so people can get to their business. That's a regulation. What businesses don't want is regulations that say how much they can charge, where they can sell their product, how they produce a product, etc.
The incentive is already there to produce a good product for a low price. It's called profit.
James_ wrote:
Having rules to follow means that profits have to be earned. Having a business means that profits have to be earned. It is obvious you have never run a business successfully.
Since you have now decided to preach fascism, what in your muddled head made you forget about what happens in such a governmental system? Do you not learn from history?
It is obvious you don't know various forms of governments and you have never read the Constitution of the United States. Have you ever read the constitution of your State? Probably not.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |