Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

Alright, so humans are 100% behind the change in climate despite producing a whopping 3.75% of CO2 emissions
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf ... I just want to make sure that this is the case, and I'm not being mean, facetious, sarcastic, at all....just asking, just legitimately wondering. At the end of the day if that's what we're talking about then, Apparently the Earth can handle Mother Nature's 770,000 metric tons of CO2, but humanity's 23,100 metric tons of CO2 is a bridge too far and we're all doomed. It seems a bit much....yes there's the whole "the straw that broke the camel's back" and after a certain point yes Earth wouldn't be able to take the CO2 emissions but when that sort of catastrophe is talked about it's gigantic volcanoes that are doing the damage no? Now over time are we as humans not progressing with our technology? Is the fuel not cleaner, the factories not placed under more stringent environmental restrictions? Perhaps not in China and India but certainly in the West. And if those precautions are being taken is that having any impact at all on Climate Change and if not why continue going down that road if it's not producing positive results?

Do you understand how the layman might be skeptical of such, ESPECIALLY considering the media and political angles? No, I'm not a scientist, and YES the media and politicians DO pump things up. "A few magazine articles post a few headlines" ....bcollins, millions of people read or at the very least have access to such headlines...how many people are going to slog through the tedium of peer reviewed papers and it's not like peer reviewed studies can't be compromised either (not saying that's the norm, just saying the average man who might have doubts about such things would ask about it).



I am glad that you have responded in a civil manner and not been a prick to me this time. I do genuinely appreciate that regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. So at the very least I respect you for taking the time and having the patience to respond in that manner.....and yeah I can get very short in my arguments, but in this response I am trying to meet you on that same level of respect.

[bcollins]

Alright, so humans are 100% behind the change in climate despite producing a whopping 3.75% of CO2 emissions
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf ... I just want to make sure that this is the case, and I'm not being mean, facetious, sarcastic, at all....just asking, just legitimately wondering. At the end of the day if that's what we're talking about then, Apparently the Earth can handle Mother Nature's 770,000 metric tons of CO2, but humanity's 23,100 metric tons of CO2 is a bridge too far and we're all doomed. It seems a bit much....yes there's the whole "the straw that broke the camel's back" and after a certain point yes Earth wouldn't be able to take the CO2 emissions but when that sort of catastrophe is talked about it's gigantic volcanoes that are doing the damage no? Now over time are we as humans not progressing with our technology? Is the fuel not cleaner, the factories not placed under more stringent environmental restrictions? Perhaps not in China and India but certainly in the West. And if those precautions are being taken is that having any impact at all on Climate Change and if not why continue going down that road if it's not producing positive results?

Do you understand how the layman might be skeptical of such, ESPECIALLY considering the media and political angles? No, I'm not a scientist, and YES the media and politicians DO pump things up. "A few magazine articles post a few headlines" ....bcollins, millions of people read or at the very least have access to such headlines...how many people are going to slog through the tedium of peer reviewed papers and it's not like peer reviewed studies can't be compromised either (not saying that's the norm, just saying the average man who might have doubts about such things would ask about it).



I am glad that you have responded in a civil manner and not been a prick to me this time. I do genuinely appreciate that regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. So at the very least I respect you for taking the time and having the patience to respond in that manner.....and yeah I can get very short in my arguments, but in this response I am trying to meet you on that same level of respect.

Sorry I'm late in responding - my week decided to get crazy all of a sudden.

I really am sorry that I get so contentious about this subject, Lyle. It really isn't you - it's that I have all these things pent up that I would like to say to the people in my personal life but never get the chance. It's clear we're both passionate about this topic and sometimes it gets away from us. I want to be clear that I think you are VERY intelligent. You've shown that with the quality of many of your other posts. That may be one of the primary reasons I get so frustrated!

I will come back to this discussion as soon as I can. I'm swamped at the moment, but I had to respond to that post.

[walrus]

Alright, so humans are 100% behind the change in climate despite producing a whopping 3.75% of CO2 emissions
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf ... I just want to make sure that this is the case, and I'm not being mean, facetious, sarcastic, at all....just asking, just legitimately wondering. At the end of the day if that's what we're talking about then, Apparently the Earth can handle Mother Nature's 770,000 metric tons of CO2, but humanity's 23,100 metric tons of CO2 is a bridge too far and we're all doomed. It seems a bit much....yes there's the whole "the straw that broke the camel's back" and after a certain point yes Earth wouldn't be able to take the CO2 emissions but when that sort of catastrophe is talked about it's gigantic volcanoes that are doing the damage no? Now over time are we as humans not progressing with our technology? Is the fuel not cleaner, the factories not placed under more stringent environmental restrictions? Perhaps not in China and India but certainly in the West. And if those precautions are being taken is that having any impact at all on Climate Change and if not why continue going down that road if it's not producing positive results?

Do you understand how the layman might be skeptical of such, ESPECIALLY considering the media and political angles? No, I'm not a scientist, and YES the media and politicians DO pump things up. "A few magazine articles post a few headlines" ....bcollins, millions of people read or at the very least have access to such headlines...how many people are going to slog through the tedium of peer reviewed papers and it's not like peer reviewed studies can't be compromised either (not saying that's the norm, just saying the average man who might have doubts about such things would ask about it).



I am glad that you have responded in a civil manner and not been a prick to me this time. I do genuinely appreciate that regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. So at the very least I respect you for taking the time and having the patience to respond in that manner.....and yeah I can get very short in my arguments, but in this response I am trying to meet you on that same level of respect.

Sorry I'm late in responding - my week decided to get crazy all of a sudden.

I really am sorry that I get so contentious about this subject, Lyle. It really isn't you - it's that I have all these things pent up that I would like to say to the people in my personal life but never get the chance. It's clear we're both passionate about this topic and sometimes it gets away from us. I want to be clear that I think you are VERY intelligent. You've shown that with the quality of many of your other posts. That may be one of the primary reasons I get so frustrated!

I will come back to this discussion as soon as I can. I'm swamped at the moment, but I had to respond to that post.

your swamped, are you in a coastal area? Is it erosion or water rising?

[El Kabong]

Sorry I'm late in responding - my week decided to get crazy all of a sudden.

I really am sorry that I get so contentious about this subject, Lyle. It really isn't you - it's that I have all these things pent up that I would like to say to the people in my personal life but never get the chance. It's clear we're both passionate about this topic and sometimes it gets away from us. I want to be clear that I think you are VERY intelligent. You've shown that with the quality of many of your other posts. That may be one of the primary reasons I get so frustrated!

I will come back to this discussion as soon as I can. I'm swamped at the moment, but I had to respond to that post.

No worries, I can certainly understand that you are proud of your work and as well you should be. I too care about the environment as I am an avid outdoorsman, I hunt, I fish, I'm starting a garden, I'll be starting an apiary in the spring as well.


I just don't appreciate (and you can see from the majority of stories I post in here) "journalists" and politicians spouting off nonsense about the climate and what needs to happen in order to turn things around: taxing red meat until nobody can afford it is a dumb idea, suggesting families shouldn't have kids is a dumb idea, wailing against sea level rises and then buying a beach front mansion is pretty hypocritical, giving speeches about anthropogenic global warming and then boarding your private jet is hypocritical, carbon offsets seem to me to be like paying for indulgences in the Catholic church, blaming wildfires started by an arsonist on 'Global Warming' is dumb, blaming the Syrian Civil War on 'Climate Change' is dumb, having summits on Anthropogenic Climate Change which sees all these world leaders coming in 1 by 1 on their big jets and having motorcades, that seems to be hypocritical when they are pursuing policies which will hurt the average man. Environmental Austerity for thee but not for me if you will....those kinds of things irk me a whole lot more than the scientific end of things and frankly that kind of stuff is why there will be more people denying Anthropogenic Global Warming, that dilutes anything someone doing any study is going to be able to achieve.

[El Kabong]

Shot....

[El Kabong]

Chaser...

[El Kabong]

Said he would stop the seas from rising and heal the Earth.....8 years later complains seas are rising.


Yeah I've got an issue with that coming from a politician. It either means Barack Obama has done a shitty fucking job OR he can't make the change he told people he'd make and those options are pretty damned close to being one and the same

[walrus]

Said he would stop the seas from rising and heal the Earth.....8 years later complains seas are rising.


Yeah I've got an issue with that coming from a politician. It either means Barack Obama has done a shitty fucking job OR he can't make the change he told people he'd make and those options are pretty damned close to being one and the same

If we take all the rocks off the ocean floor wouldn't the water level go down. It really seems simple to me. Or we could just scoop some water out and put it somewhere else