<Peak Oil Media The Oil Drum Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?>
<DrumBeat: July 26, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: July 28, 2008>

301 comments on DrumBeat: July 27, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

AlanfromBigEasy on July 27, 2008 - 3:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Your reputation precedes you !

If you think that CO2 is not warming the biosphere because it is such a small %, add .04% of a strong dye (say india ink) to a very deep, very clear pool. A VERY good analogy to the impact of CO2 at infrared wavelengths.

You ARE a denier IMO.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
rainsong on July 27, 2008 - 4:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

While one experiment showed a glass enclosure filled with CO2 will warm more rapidly in sunlight than a glass enclosure filled with air; how might one account for glaciers receding from near the Indiana-Kentucky state line to above the Arctic Circle since the end of the Ice Age? Manhattan was once covered by a continental ice sheet that began to recede about 11,000 years ago. The ice sheet was there year round.

There was some other factor involved with this pre-industrial period of global warming that may not be plotted on CO2 density charts.

What caused the Ice Ages in the first place? Is there evidence one might reoccur? Will a change in the earth's orbit bring about another Ice Age? Will this cause a massive relocation of habitation?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on July 27, 2008 - 8:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

By asking these questions you are proving one of two things: you don't understand what is or is not relveant in the science of global climate, or you have never bothered to do ANY research whatsoever becuase those are the most basic of questions and have the most basic of answers. If neither A nor B are true, then you are a troll on this topic for you are asking unimportant questions for questionable reasons.

You see, since none of those questions are really relevant anymore, having been fully accounted for and being fully understood in terms of their roles in the science of global climate, there can be only one reason to ask them (keeping in mind what I stated in the first paragraph): obfuscation. You wish to mislead those not well-versed in the topic to believe there is some doubt. There is not.

I present the same challenge to you I present to ALL denialists (And given that we know the vast majority are politicized, are paid off and don't do any perr reviewed science, I am completely comfortable with labeling them to almost certainly be criminals spreading disinformation in such a manner as to undermine the future security of humanity on this planet. That is, you are almost certainly committing crimes against humanity. Given that scale, if you are either A or B are true, then you are wasting everyone's time and deserve any vitriol that comes your way.): Present some peer-reviewed science that has stood the critiques or shut the hell up. (Hint: there isn't any.)

Let's be charitable for a nano-second and assume you are just gullible:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

You can also search on any topic related to climate change at RealScience.

There will be no further charity from me. If you can honestly look at the science then return here and honestly remain a sceptic, then you are just lacking in objectivity and/or intelligence or are on the take.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrc9596 on July 27, 2008 - 9:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And you CCPO, have you ever considered that maybe being polite and semi respectful is a virtue? Your insistance on being rude and showing your a$$ reminds me of why on the survialist blogs their first global warming action is "shoot the f*cking environmentalists" then reduce fossil fuel use.

Lovely attitude....People like you are a hell of alot more dangerous than peak oil or global warming combined.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go load some more bullets.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on July 27, 2008 - 11:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And you CCPO, have you ever considered that maybe being polite and semi respectful is a virtue?

First, did I label the poster? I did not. I listed several possibilities, but the possibilities ARE limited. I then provided infomation for the poster to review. I then invited them back to state their opposition or understanding of the science.

How is any of that impolite? If we accept your characterization of my post, let me then ask: Are you polite to the guy raping your wife and murdering your kids?

I see no difference between bought off denialists and the above. We are talking civilization here. Pray tell, what need be at risk before you hit back? Is civilization not enough?

Beyond that, your post is ridiculous. I'm "dangerous" for calling a spade a spade? I'm dangerous for stating that a crime against humanity is *gasp!* a crime against humanity?

FACT: the denialist machine is the primary reason for people believing there is a serious debate about AGW. There is virtually no science backing up the claim. This being the case, there is no legiimate claim that AGW is not happening. (Not that scientists should not continue researching and going where the facts lead.)

THUS: virtually anyone advocating that agenda is corrupt or brainwashed.

THUS: the former are criminals and the latter lacking in intelligence, objectivity or knowledge. (Saying so cannot be called rude.)

You care to point out the flaw in the argument? Further, you need to defend your stance that I said anything impolite. If truth and logic are impolite, then we are well and truly screwed.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Arclite on July 28, 2008 - 9:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hey CCPO,

Thanks for your vigorous defense of science and GW. We've been too passive for too long, and only aggressive push back will produce results.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on July 28, 2008 - 10:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My (dis)pleasure. It's hard to believe it's even necessary. There's a guy on YouTube, a science teacher, who's done a great set of vids on the denialists' arguments. Great stuff. One of the people he'd been sparring with in his comments turned out to be a paid lackey. We have seen the same sort of organized disinformation campaigns from Big Oil and the Bush Admin for years. It would, in fac, be stupid not to assume people working so ahrd with so little evidence are anything but paid hacks. To do otherwise is to be forced to assume they are monumentally stupid. Which is worse to say about someone?

Frankly, I assume anyone posting anti-AGW tripe to be just that, a paid lackey, so I give no quarter.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MyrddinWen on July 28, 2008 - 4:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, this chap should be tried for his crimes against humanity;

fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

and

was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

and even

the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

Perphaps he should learn some physics, and he is one of those ..

criminals spreading disinformation in such a manner as to undermine the future security of humanity on this planet

and he must be ..

lacking in objectivity and/or intelligence or [is] on the take

Whatever you or I think of the man, many millions of folk believe he is Christs' Envoy on Earth.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on July 28, 2008 - 5:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You would be the criminal, if anyone, for you have misrepresented what the Pope said in order to... what? Taking quotes and science out of context is the domain of the denialists. Until otherwise shown, I shall assume you are such.

In the Pope's case, his religious "belief" (ignorance) may be clouding his judgment as to the extent of the problem, but he is not denying AGW. It is a far cry from saying AGW is bull for a $10,000 check and saying let's not let ideology drive our understanding of the science. The latter is closer to what the Pope said, so no, he could not be considered to be committing a crime against humanity.

But thanks for adding nothing but bull crap to the thread. We should all be practicing spreading manure, after all.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

301 comments on DrumBeat: July 27, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version