Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

How about NASA's methods and accuracy? They are in fact a government agency.

How bout chicken little? Were you read that alot as a child?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, what are you disputing here? The accuracy of the data? The methodology?

I got most of that covered. How about you?

[scandal 951]

Like I said before, there is not a ready supply of liquid carbon dioxide (not at atmospheric pressure, anyways) available to provide the vapor pressure sufficient to replenish the atmosphere on a continuing basis.

I haven't read this thread. I'm just gonna jump in on this.

CO2 doesn't exist in liquid form under normal pressure conditions. It is found under atmospheric conditions only as a gas or a solid (dry ice).

Carry on.

[luckytxn 2,265]

How about NASA's methods and accuracy? They are in fact a government agency.

And they make many mistakes too. In fact they have to make constant updates ongoing to correct everything that has happened before. I worked at the Johnson Space center for a couple of years.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I haven't read this thread. I'm just gonna jump in on this.

CO2 doesn't exist in liquid form under normal pressure conditions. It is found under atmospheric conditions only as a gas or a solid (dry ice).

Carry on.

My point exactly!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your point, Bill, is that CO2 is not a significant factor in affecting climate, which completely contradicts the science.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[luckytxn 2,265]

Your point, Bill, is that CO2 is not a significant factor in affecting climate, which completely contradicts the science.

The bunk science you mean. PPMs are very small and the percentages remain the same. This planet needs Co2 to survive. Now if we lower the percentages an appreciable amount then I say we better start worrying. So far they are saying that the Co2 levels have been rising and are causing Global warming then how come the past decade has shown the temps to be lower. Just a blip?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The bunk science you mean. PPMs are very small and the percentages remain the same. This planet needs Co2 to survive. Now if we lower the percentages an appreciable amount then I say we better start worrying. So far they are saying that the Co2 levels have been rising and are causing Global warming then how come the past decade has shown the temps to be lower. Just a blip?

Look, if you want to have a serious science discussion, then you need to set aside your conspiracy theories of this being a government plot and focus on the cold hard scientific principles we are talking about.

For one, CO2 accumulates (saturation) in the atmosphere. That is a known, provable scientific fact and I challenge you to show any scientific papers that prove otherwise.

Plants do use CO2 during photosynthesis and play a part in why our climate is regulated. That is also a measurable variable, just as the how much the oceans absorb.

CO2 levels continue to rise as the global temperature has been rising. If you look at the data, you'll see the fluctuations that happen with both CO2 and temperature, but over a period of time, the linear slope is well defined and the plausible projections are apparent.

That's just cold hard scientific facts. I'd challenge you to find any scientific paper that proves any of those scientific facts to be incorrect.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Your point, Bill, is that CO2 is not a significant factor in affecting climate, which completely contradicts the science.

High School science, maybe, but not grown-up science.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Look, if you want to have a serious science discussion, then you need to set aside your conspiracy theories of this being a government plot and focus on the cold hard scientific principles we are talking about.

For one, CO2 accumulates (saturation) in the atmosphere. That is a known, provable scientific fact and I challenge you to show any scientific papers that prove otherwise.

Plants do use CO2 during photosynthesis and play a part in why our climate is regulated. That is also a measurable variable, just as the how much the oceans absorb.

CO2 levels continue to rise as the global temperature has been rising. If you look at the data, you'll see the fluctuations that happen with both CO2 and temperature, but over a period of time, the linear slope is well defined and the plausible projections are apparent.

That's just cold hard scientific facts. I'd challenge you to find any scientific paper that proves any of those scientific facts to be incorrect.

If indeed carbon dioxide accumulates, and is constantly increasing, how do you explain the sinusoidal nature of the graph you insist proves your theory? The levels are decreasing and increasing on a periodic basis. There is more to heaven and earth, than are accounted for in your theory, Steven.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

High School science, maybe, but not grown-up science.

You're discounting the scientific knowledge of Keeling and the integrity of Scripps? Bill, you're just making yourself out to be an extremist who pretends to know something about science, but picks and chooses what is real and not real.

[luckytxn 2,265]

High School science, maybe, but not grown-up science.

Exactly or bunk science. I guess I could whip out the links again that show all this AGAIN but have to go to bed but will come play again later.

Can't figure out how Co2 staying pretty much even percentage wise is so bad when Co2 in needed for us to survive. If the temps have actually been rising in the past decade then couldn't the models now show that Cos is leading to Global cooling? Is the faking and suppression of data that disproves the bunk science and more scientists disbelieve the science makes it a bunk science? Stay tuned later to another episode of, "how to hoodwink a nation."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If indeed carbon dioxide accumulates, and is constantly increasing, how do you explain the sinusoidal nature of the graph you insist proves your theory? The levels are decreasing and increasing on a periodic basis. There is more to heaven and earth, than are accounted for in your theory, Steven.

Bill, as a math major, you should recognize the slope of a function. Do you not see it?

Second, if you acknowledge that the climate's regulation is a balancing act, then any force that isn't met with an equal counter force with throw that balance off, particularly if that force builds up over time.

Exactly or bunk science. I guess I could whip out the links again that show all this AGAIN but have to go to bed but will come play again later.

Can't figure out how Co2 staying pretty much even percentage wise is so bad when Co2 in needed for us to survive. If the temps have actually been rising in the past decade then couldn't the models now show that Cos is leading to Global cooling? Is the faking and suppression of data that disproves the bunk science and more scientists disbelieve the science makes it a bunk science? Stay tuned later to another episode of, "how to hoodwink a nation."

Again, I challenge you to prove that the data is wrong with scientific fact and not just conjecture. I have no interest in getting into a conspiracy theory debate with you.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[luckytxn 2,265]

Bill, as a math major, you should recognize the slope of a function. Do you not see it?

Second, if you acknowledge that the climate's regulation is a balancing act, then any force that isn't met with an equal counter force with throw that balance off, particularly if that force builds up over time.

Again, I challenge you to prove that the data is wrong with scientific fact and not just conjecture. I have no interest in getting into a conspiracy theory debate with you.

Thought you said in another thread you had some proof to counteract everything I said but have found none. This was all shown to be bunk before by me. Your so called science is not a science when they have been proven to have falsified data, disregard any data that has shown them to be wrong, disregard the majority of scientists that disbelieve the Global warming theory.

Now Co2 is measurable I agree. Co2 has shown to be constant for pretty much a long length of time. The percentages are the same. This shows me that Co2 is not a culprit of anything. Co2 is very much needed for our survival on this planet.

The main problems we have had in the past and still do is particulate contaminations. We have here done a great job at lowering this and I feel we can do a better job at that. To go after what is essentially a much needed gas is really stretching things and I think a red herring to throw us off from what is needed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thought you said in another thread you had some proof to counteract everything I said but have found none. This was all shown to be bunk before by me. Your so called science is not a science when they have been proven to have falsified data, disregard any data that has shown them to be wrong, disregard the majority of scientists that disbelieve the Global warming theory.

Now Co2 is measurable I agree. Co2 has shown to be constant for pretty much a long length of time. The percentages are the same. This shows me that Co2 is not a culprit of anything. Co2 is very much needed for our survival on this planet.

The main problems we have had in the past and still do is particulate contaminations. We have here done a great job at lowering this and I feel we can do a better job at that. To go after what is essentially a much needed gas is really stretching things and I think a red herring to throw us off from what is needed.

Curtis, the scientific data on the measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels is there for you to look at yourself. If you want to argue science, then you've got to prove the science that is there is incorrect. For example, Charles Keeling's measurement of CO2.

You make the claim that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have remained the same, yet where are the scientific measurements by real scientists measuring it in the field who show that?