Reverse Combustion: Can CO2 Be Turned Back into Fuel?

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

"Your understanding of climate science is juvenile" is clearly designed to belittle another member and instigate an argument. It violates two clauses of that TOS statement.

Bill and I have long jabbed at each other verbally without it ever going to the point where we felt the need to hit the report button. If someone wants to report me, all I'm saying is they should start with policing themselves first.

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

So, you lack a healthy skepticism for authority. Logic fail.

It's not healthy skepticism to suspect that the bodies of science that study climate are all in cahoots with one another to dupe the public into believing something. That teeters on paranoia, not skepticism. Scientists are skeptics by default.

Edited September 27, 2010 by El Buscador

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's not healthy skepticism to suspect that the bodies of science that study climate are all in cahoots with one another to dupe the public into believing something. That teeters on paranoia, not skepticism. Scientists are skeptics by default.

There may not be an across the board conspiracy but there is pleanty of evidence that there is enough to warrant some skepticism. Science is suppost to be completly free of politics but it is obvious that in this case politics is playing a huge role in what the public sees.

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

It also implies that he has a greater understanding. It is a given that with one possible exception there is no one on this board that can claim a high order of understanding of climate science. I find his conceit amusing.

Scientific consensus is not a made up term. It is not something to just dismiss, without teetering on the paranoia. Scientists aren't perfect and do make mistakes, but the collection and analysis of the data that has led to the Theory of Global Warming is irrefutable. To continue to deny that reality is not skepticism - it's denialism.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Scientific consensus is not a made up term. It is not something to just dismiss, without teetering on the paranoia. Scientists aren't perfect and do make mistakes, but the collection and analysis of the data that has led to the Theory of Global Warming is irrefutable. To continue to deny that reality is not skepticism - it's denialism.

It is not irrefutable. It is just the best theory to fit the data. There have been countless examples of a consensus that has been found to be wrong at a later date. To blindly accept what the scientists are telling us today is placing our faith in an incomplete investigation.

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

It is not irrefutable. It is just the best theory to fit the data. There have been countless examples of a consensus that has been found to be wrong at a later date. To blindly accept what the scientists are telling us today is placing our faith in an incomplete investigation.

You don't have to be blind, to accept the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. You just need to have a reasonable understanding of how science works along with some common sense.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's not healthy skepticism to suspect that the bodies of science that study climate are all in cahoots with one another to dupe the public into believing something. That teeters on paranoia, not skepticism. Scientists are skeptics by default.

So many fallacies!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill and I have long jabbed at each other verbally without it ever going to the point where we felt the need to hit the report button. If someone wants to report me, all I'm saying is they should start with policing themselves first.

I reported you at least twice, for throwing a temper tantrum.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You don't have to be blind, to accept the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. You just need to have a reasonable understanding of how science works along with some common sense.

There is no consesnus on man made CO2 emissions are making the planet warm. There is a corralation at the moment and over a short time period. Over the long term however there is no correlation what so ever.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Scientific consensus is not a made up term. It is not something to just dismiss, without teetering on the paranoia. Scientists aren't perfect and do make mistakes, but the collection and analysis of the data that has led to the Theory of Global Warming is irrefutable. To continue to deny that reality is not skepticism - it's denialism.

Turn the page Steven. It's not Global Warming any more.

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

Turn the page Steven. It's not Global Warming any more.

It matters little what term they give it. The phenomenon remains the same.

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

There is no consesnus on man made CO2 emissions are making the planet warm.

There is a scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Every major body of science around the world that studies climate echoes that. That's where common sense comes into play with regard to whether you accept the science or continue to deny it.

There is a corralation at the moment and over a short time period. Over the long term however there is no correlation what so ever.

Scientists have long known that the earth's climate is carefully kept in balance through a carbon cycle. Throw that cycle off to a large enough degree and the planet goes through a climate change, and historically, that has happened over thousands of years. However, the recent warming is happening at an alarming rate, over decades vs. thousands of years. This is the concern of the climate scientists.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There is a scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Every major body of science around the world that studies climate echoes that. That's where common sense comes into play with regard to whether you accept the science or continue to deny it.

You see, I am not a skeptic or a denier. I have no idea if the earth is getting warmer and if it is whether humans are causing it. I don't care if any of it is true. The earth has been much warmer than it is today in the past. If fact we are in a cool period compaired to much of the earths history. I don't want to try and stop warming because it is a futile job. If we are causing the warming with our CO2 then it took over 100 years of our activities to do it. If that is the case then it is to late to change it and to try is a waste of time and money. If it is natural then there is nothing we can do to change it. In both cases our money is better spent getting ready for the change rather than trying to stop it. I see the attempt at trying to change the climate as a political move rather than a scientific one.

Scientists have long known that the earth's climate is carefully kept in balance through a carbon cycle. Throw that cycle off to a large enough degree and the planet goes through a climate change, and historically, that has happened over thousands of years. However, the recent warming is happening at an alarming rate, over decades vs. thousands of years. This is the concern of the climate scientists.

There is no proof that this change is any faster than any other change. The ice and tree ring data only goes back a few thousand years. The earths history is billions of years and there is no way to know if a change happened over a hundred years or a thousand years. The fossil record does not give us that kind of resolution.

Edited September 27, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Scientists have long known that the earth's climate is carefully kept in balance through a carbon cycle.

Carbon is the nectar of the gods.

[Nagishkaw 510]