Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists deliver message to NJ Gov. Chris Christie: Climate change is real and it is man-made
northjersey.com ^ | 12.07.10 | MATT FRIEDMAN

Posted on 12/08/2010 3:59:15 PM PST by Coleus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: Coleus

Does anyone notice how they switch off on their argument?

Someone says that they don’t believe in “man-made global warming”, and their response is faux outrage, saying “of course global warming” is happening. Notice the difference?

They switch off between MMGW and just GW, pretending they are one in the same, when that is clearly not true.

To some extent, evidence suggests that indeed GW is taking place. But there is little or no evidence that it is mankind causing any part of it.

The same thing applies to global cooling. There is some evidence that suggests that GC is taking place. But still, there is little or no evidence that it is people that are making it happen.


61 posted on 12/08/2010 6:06:49 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I'm not sure how useful that analogy is since the few cups of additive in the swimming pool (natural CO2 in the natural atmosphere) make the difference between warm and rather cold (water vapor alone is not going to keep the earth warm). My preference in those cases is the political argument. Use the swimming pool and show us shrinking our economy when we take out a few cups of water (CO2 is proportional to economic activity). Now show China dumping gallons in (they are building two coal based power plants a week). The science is hopelessly politicized since the government has bought the research results they want (that calls for more government control). So at this point politics should be the preferred mode of argument.

Huh? Keep it simple when debating, I got a headache reading your response.

62 posted on 12/08/2010 6:07:15 PM PST by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

Lot of time on your hands huh, LOL? OK so maybe I read the analogy wrong an eyedropper full.


63 posted on 12/08/2010 6:11:33 PM PST by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Oh? The how come it magically changed from “global warming” to “climate change”?


64 posted on 12/08/2010 6:11:50 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Nary a scientist in the bunch!

Just a bunch of Grant Whores protecting their income.
.


65 posted on 12/08/2010 6:34:13 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01

Sorry. CAGW = hoax


66 posted on 12/08/2010 6:36:53 PM PST by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

I think if Chris asked the question, these scientist advocates would freeze up.

I just took another trip through the central valley of California. The area is a moonscape. To save a small freaking fry fish they have turned the area back to nature.

These scientists don’t think about the other side of the cost equation. How many people will die due to decreased crop yields that the CO2 would have given us? How many people will die from cancer caused by the Mercury in the CFLs?

They keep telling us that the other side of the equation isn’t a concern but refuse to quantify it.

I don’t trust them. I think they need to be exposed. For ever benefit they claim there is an offset. Trees cut to make room for windmills and solar panels. Water required to clean the solar panels. etc...


67 posted on 12/08/2010 6:41:47 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01; dila813; Coleus
Eyedroppers don't hold 300 drops.

But guess what. I realized that I made a big error.

The figure I gave for the metric tons of CO2 emitted in one year should actually be thousands of metric tons. link

So the correct equivalent volume of water is approximately 300,000 drops in an OSSP, or 15 liters, which is about:

4 gallons of water in an Olympic sized pool

I'm kind of an agnostic about AGW, but this figure doesn't seem so insignificant, especially when you think that it involves a substance that has been accumulating for 100 years and which may have an outsize effect compared with its relative volume.

Lot of time on your hands huh,

It seems worthwhile to point out misinformation when a figure is off by a factor of 200,000. It didn't take all that long.

(BTW the total CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to over 250 gallons in an OSSP.)

68 posted on 12/08/2010 6:46:31 PM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

That is an important point, easily overlooked.

I have seen a number of statements for years that are cleverly constructed to be true yet totally miss-lead. A scientist delivering such a parsed political statement can’t be trusted.

If you have ever met a real scientist, they just don’t have these skills. They don’t.


69 posted on 12/08/2010 6:50:41 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Andy from Chapel Hill

Not showing up, except for your post here.


70 posted on 12/08/2010 6:51:44 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Activist liberals but certain not scientists.


71 posted on 12/08/2010 6:52:45 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

ROBOCK, ALAN
MANASQUAN, NJ 08736
RUTGERS UNIV./PROFESSOR

ZEITZ, JOSHUA M
VIA ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS
03/23/2008 500.00 28990817362

FEINGOLD, RUSSELL D
VIA FEINGOLD SENATE COMMITTEE
09/22/2010 1000.00 10020842208

FOSTER, G. WILLIAM (BILL)
VIA BILL FOSTER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
10/10/2008 250.00 28934750141

HOLT, RUSH D.
VIA RUSH HOLT FOR CONGRESS
04/10/2010 1000.00 10930783377

KERRY, JOHN F
VIA JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
04/23/2004 2000.00 24961471454

ZEITZ, JOSHUA M
VIA ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS
06/18/2008 250.00 28932239555
10/21/2008 500.00 28993688026


72 posted on 12/08/2010 6:58:29 PM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for, it matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

5.512 X 10^15 is the Weight of the Atmosphere

The CO2 can’t be right though, because 0.039% of this is CO2.

Remember, my question for Christi to ask is how much has persisted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

If we are emitting it and it gets absorbed as quickly as it is emitted, then it is of no concern.

My understanding is that something on the order of 0.0013 x 10^-58 is the correct answer. I saw a video somewhere that laid this all out and I think it would be devastating to anyone arguing AGW.


73 posted on 12/08/2010 7:08:20 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dila813
The CO2 can’t be right though, because 0.039% of this is CO2.

Yes, I noticed that I had the CO2 too low by a factor of 1000. I corrected the answer in #68.

Remember, my question for Christi to ask is how much has persisted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

If we are emitting it and it gets absorbed as quickly as it is emitted, then it is of no concern.

My understanding is that something on the order of 0.0013 x 10^-58 is the correct answer. I saw a video somewhere that laid this all out and I think it would be devastating to anyone arguing AGW.

It is known from various experiments that the CO2 has increased by 100 ppm since the start of the Industrial Revolution, so saying that is not increasing is only going to be devastating to your argument.

74 posted on 12/08/2010 7:18:42 PM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

No, but you are looking at the total gross emission.

I am talking what is the net net persisting co2.

We aren’t arguing it isn’t increasing, we are quantifying for the public how much.

That is the problem right? We are increasing it? so how much, really is it?

Almost nothing you can measure. I remember the guy in the video said you needed 3-5 years just to be certain because it is so small it is in in the margin of error.

Remember, we are arguing we don’t have to reduce emissions but you are trying to quantify how much we are emitting, that doesn’t matter.


75 posted on 12/08/2010 7:33:50 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

ok, let me see if I have this right.

100ppm of co2 with co2 equal to 0.039% of the total weight.

So, that would be roughly 3.9 x 10^-10 tons?

It going to be something crazy low like that.


76 posted on 12/08/2010 7:57:45 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dila813

ah, I think that 100ppm is the net increase, not the human contributed portion.

You have to take volcanoes, forest fires, etc.. into account. It is a fraction of that too.

The earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age and we are still coming out of it. CO2 increasing has natural components to it.


77 posted on 12/08/2010 8:05:10 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: dila813

There's no question that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing from year to year. As I understand it, it is possible to tell that this is from fossil fuel burning because the increased CO2 does not contain carbon-14.

It sounds like the arguments on your video are bogus.

78 posted on 12/08/2010 8:09:37 PM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

The absolute worst greenhouse gas on the planet is not CO2 nor is it methane.

It is (wait for it)......... water vapor.

We’re doomed!


79 posted on 12/08/2010 8:16:30 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

No, not all the increase is from fossil fuel burning.

Forest Fires give off the same CO2 that is emitted from the local power plant.

Also, they count CO2 from decomposing plants in the increase too because they said it is due to us increasing the temperature.

They have made man the catch all, they say it is all due to man but not all the increase is due to fossil burning.

I will see if I can find the video and send it to you.

It was very boring because it when into great detail.

Broke AGW down to the theory of the straw that broke the camels back. We put the straw on the camels back so therefore it is all our fault and therefore we broke the camels back. It is a self feeding argument. But when you expose the straw, which is the size of the pin of a needle in a sack of sugar you are stunned.

Long set of calculations. Really the point wasn’t to get us to go through them. The point was to get them to go through them. If they even could.


80 posted on 12/08/2010 8:27:15 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson