Page 3 of 4

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:16 am
by kramer
Fordama wrote: Except that it had little connection to reality.

Carbon cycle--learn it, love it, live it.

Fordama
Another reply with pronouncements and no substance.

I thought you liberals were supposed to be more intelligent than us mouth-breathers? You're making your comrades look bad.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:01 am
by Wabash
kramer wrote: Another reply with pronouncements and no substance.
To the contrary. The response had significant substance. You just don't understand it.
kramer wrote:I thought you liberals were supposed to be more intelligent than us mouth-breathers? You're making your comrades look bad.
They are smarter than the conspiracy types. That much is sure.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:51 pm
by kramer
kramer wrote: Another reply with pronouncements and no substance.
Wabash wrote:To the contrary. The response had significant substance. You just don't understand it.
What we on this board understand is that niether you or him can explain in detail how the 'substance' in Ford's post is indeed substance. You and him are just pronouncing BS.


kramer wrote:I thought you liberals were supposed to be more intelligent than us mouth-breathers? You're making your comrades look bad.
Wabash wrote: They are smarter than the conspiracy types. That much is sure.
90% of what I post that is claimed by the leftists on this board to be conspiracy theories is just information from your side that I've gathered and posted along with the links to them. Since you 'smarter' liberals have never been able to do much other than hurl a few insults and then run and hide when a request for a discussion comes up on these discomforting posts, do you know what this shows everybody?... It shows everybody that the conspiracy types are smarter than the liberals here who think they are smarter than the conspiracy types.


(logged in today)

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:01 pm
by Wabash
kramer wrote: 90% of what I post that is claimed by the leftists on this board to be conspiracy theories is just information from your side that I've gathered and posted along with the links to them.
As opposed to 100% of your conspiracy theories being total BS.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:23 pm
by Fordama
kramer wrote: 90% of what I post that is claimed by the leftists ...
RIght there you lose all credibility on the issue.

Fordama

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:19 am
by kramer
kramer wrote: 90% of what I post that is claimed by the leftists on this board to be conspiracy theories is just information from your side that I've gathered and posted along with the links to them.
Wabash wrote:As opposed to 100% of your conspiracy theories being total BS.
"Total BS?"
Then how come when I post a link that has some influential policy-maker or leftist organization calling for a global government or redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations, you leftists have never bothered to explain and/or prove why they are nothing but BS conspiracies?

The liberal response on this board is alwasy the same to discomforting information backed up with links:
1) Bleats of conspiracy and an occasional tin foil hat thrown in.
2) No explanation as to why my sources are wrong.
3) Run and hide to avoid explaining why they are BS.

As to them being *my* conspiracy theories, how could this be possible? All I do is find this stuff from credible leftist sources and post them. I never claim they are conspiracies. Its you leftists who bleat conspiracy after reading what I post.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:02 am
by Fordama
kramer wrote:

"Total BS?"
Then how come when I post a link that has some influential policy-maker or leftist organization calling for a global government or redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations, you leftists have never bothered to explain and/or prove why they are nothing but BS conspiracies?

The liberal response on this board is alwasy the same to discomforting information backed up with links:
1) Bleats of conspiracy and an occasional tin foil hat thrown in.
2) No explanation as to why my sources are wrong.
3) Run and hide to avoid explaining why they are BS.

As to them being *my* conspiracy theories, how could this be possible? All I do is find this stuff from credible leftist sources and post them. I never claim they are conspiracies. Its you leftists who bleat conspiracy after reading what I post.
I long ago posted the traits differentiating between skeptics--of which you are not--and denialist--of which you are one.

The game was over then--you just didn't realize it and keep cherry-picking, anomaly hunting, and shotgunning.

Fordama

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:11 pm
by kramer
kramer wrote:

"Total BS?"
Then how come when I post a link that has some influential policy-maker or leftist organization calling for a global government or redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations, you leftists have never bothered to explain and/or prove why they are nothing but BS conspiracies?

The liberal response on this board is alwasy the same to discomforting information backed up with links:
1) Bleats of conspiracy and an occasional tin foil hat thrown in.
2) No explanation as to why my sources are wrong.
3) Run and hide to avoid explaining why they are BS.

As to them being *my* conspiracy theories, how could this be possible? All I do is find this stuff from credible leftist sources and post them. I never claim they are conspiracies. Its you leftists who bleat conspiracy after reading what I post.
Fordama wrote:I long ago posted the traits differentiating between skeptics--of which you are not--and denialist--of which you are one.
I've always been skeptical of the claim that the majority of the recent warming is human caused. Because of this, you call me a denialist.

And then I created a thread with a PNAS paper that shows half of the recent warming is from nature to which you haven't yet had the balls to make a comment in.

And to rub your face in the dirt, I then added Gore's comment on how CO2 only is responsible for about 40% of the warming. Doing the math, that means at best, 20% of the recent warming has been caused by human CO2 which means I was right in my skepticism and you are wrong to believe the scientists as well as you're wrong to call me a denialist.

:D

Fordama wrote:The game was over then--you just didn't realize it and keep cherry-picking, anomaly hunting, and shotgunning.

Fordama
The amount of stupidity and ignorance you continually show on this point is astounding! Perhaps that is why you've never had the balls to comment in that thread... the science in it must really wad your tin foil panties in the crack of your democrat.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:47 pm
by Fordama
kramer wrote:I've always been skeptical of the claim that the majority of the recent warming is human caused. Because of this, you call me a denialist. .
No, because of your practices make you a denialist, not a skeptic.

Syntheses. Think about it.

Fordama

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:18 pm
by kramer
Fordama wrote: No, because of your practices make you a denialist, not a skeptic.

Syntheses. Think about it.

Fordama
Nothing to think about. I've always been skeptical of the claim that human released plant and tree food was the major reason for the warming. And now it turns out (at least for the time being) that it looks like my skepticism was right.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:26 pm
by Fordama
kramer wrote:
Nothing to think about.
And so you haven't. Which is why you aren't a skeptic.

Fordama

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:00 pm
by kramer
kramer wrote:
Nothing to think about.
Fordama wrote:And so you haven't. Which is why you aren't a skeptic.
I've always been skeptical of the claim that human released plant and tree food was the major reason for the warming. And now it turns out (at least for the time being) that it looks like my skepticism was right.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:57 pm
by Fordama
kramer wrote:

I've always been skeptical ..
Not really--at least not in the formal use of the world. You've wanted to not believe it because of the perceived political implications, so you've spent countless hours to comfirm that bias.

Fordama

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:18 pm
by kramer
kramer wrote: I've always been skeptical ..
Fordama wrote:Not really--at least not in the formal use of the world. You've wanted to not believe it because of the perceived political implications, so you've spent countless hours to comfirm that bias.

Actually, what got me started on this issue was the Kyoto Protocol in the 90s. When I read that it would cause a redistribution of wealth from the US to other countries and force our jobs overseas, a big red flag went off in my head and I've been following this issue ever since.

Leave it to Clinton to find another way to transfer our jobs overseas and he did when he gave China PNTR after the communist Chinese government gave him and the DNC illegal donations. Now democrats are still trying to find a way to redistribute our wealth to other nations. Cap-and-trade is the way many of them would like to do it as it would also enrich the big banks.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:05 am
by tLIB
sbayhills wrote: I have chosen the Sun, because it has a lot more to do with our environment than what the human race does.
I agree with you. There are a lot of theories out there. Personally, I am more concerned about what happens after we burn through our fossil fuels than I am about global warming. The higher price of oil will reduce our use of it.

Without oil, I doubt the planet could sustain such a large population.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:12 pm
by kramer
tLIB wrote: Personally, I am more concerned about what happens after we burn through our fossil fuels than I am about global warming. The higher price of oil will reduce our use of it.
Free markets 101.

And this is a major reason why policy-makers, democrats in our government being paid off by foreign lobbyists, leftists, the UN, and others want developed countries to cut back their use of fossil fuels...because if we use less, there is less demand and hence the price of it will go down which will help developing nations develop faster and catch up to us.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:06 am
by tLIB
I agree with you Kramer, I think. I hope the free market can find a substitute. I used to be a supporter of nuclear energy, but then I read that we will likely run low on uranium before oil ](*,) Hydrogen fusion sounds better, but it is not a reality yet. We do have a huge hydrogen bomb in middle of the solar system - however the photons hitting the earth will not replace the energy lost by fossil fuels.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:07 am
by Troglodyte
Fordama wrote: You've wanted to not believe it because of the perceived political implications, so you've spent countless hours to comfirm that bias. Fordama
Just as the "true believers" have spent countless hours trying to prop up their bias.. :wink:
Kinda hard not to be skeptical when all these "tripping points" tripped nothing, and all those 'dire' predictions failed to come true.
There is one pink elephant in the room that most people refuse to see. Too damn many people.
Put 40 or 50 people in a room and the temperature goes up in that room. Put 7Billion and rapidly growing people on this planet, all using natural and manufactured resourses and energy, and the temperature will go up.,
Maybe Paul Eurlich and his "Population Bomb" was a little ahead of his time.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:51 am
by kramer
tLIB wrote:We do have a huge hydrogen bomb in middle of the solar system - however the photons hitting the earth will not replace the energy lost by fossil fuels.

Actually, the Sun hits the Earth with far far more energy than what we've used so far:

With these assumptions, figuring out how much solar energy hits the entire planet is relatively simple. 12.2 trillion watt-hours converts to 12,211 gigawatt-hours, and based on 8,760 hours per year, and 197 million square miles of earth’s surface (including the oceans), the earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year.

In case you haven’t heard, a “quad Btu” refers to one quadrillion British Thermal Units of energy, a common term used by energy economists. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

Clearly there is enough solar energy available to fulfill all the human race’s energy requirements now, and for all practical purposes, forever. The key is developing technologies that efficiently convert solar power into usable energy in a cost-effective manner.

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/ho ... earth.html
I'm ok with solar power but I think the solar panels have to be more efficient. I think eventually they will get there and then we'll have intermittent abundant (and hopefully cheap) power during sunny days. If there is no way to economically store this energy for nighttime use, I think the nighttimes for our children are going to be spent in darkness.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:39 am
by tLIB
Amazing. Some one did the calculations. All we have to do now is figure out how to convert the solar energy to power and to store it. I think it can be done. Good find Kramer.