Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By inow

Thread: Fear and Anti-Science Using the "Scary Graph"

  1. #1 Fear and Anti-Science Using the "Scary Graph" 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    The Keeling Curve is one of the more well-known and commonly published fabrications of the Global Warming Cabal.

    A simple examination of what I call the “Scary Graph” will expose the lie of Global Warming.
    First, the “Scary Graph” :
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...-story?start=1
    Note that the base is not zero. This non-zero basis severely distorts the upward slope artificially, the better to mislead you.

    Next note that the metric for carbon dioxide is “ppm” or “parts per million.” Three hundred eighty parts per million is 0.00038. It gets much, much worse.

    Far from being the ONLY greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is trivial in concentration compared to water vapor, which constitutes roughly 21,000 parts per million.

    Moreover, the creators of the “Scary Graph” imply that as miniscule as this annual increase, ~1 part per million per year of carbon dioxide is, all of it comes from humans. Not remotely true. Some 97% or so of it is naturally caused.

    The pretense that ~1 part per million annual increase in greenhouse gases, totalling about 22,000 parts per million is somehow driving the climate is the height of anti-science and anti-intellectualism, at which the left has always excelled


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Perhaps if all we had to go on was a simple graph or drawing, then you might have a point. However, we have much more than just a single graph. We have a metric shit ton of complimentary data and research which demonstrates the increase in global annual average temperatures and the effect human behavior is having on that increase.


     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Perhaps if all we had to go on was a simple graph or drawing, then you might have a point. However, we have much more than just a single graph. We have a metric shit ton of complimentary data and research which demonstrates the increase in global annual average temperatures and the effect human behavior is having on that increase.
    I have not heard of a "metric shit ton" before. In what science book did you find such a vulgar term, sir?

    Moreover, there is considerable evidence of falsification, fabrication, bias, lies, and profound hypocrisy from the Global Warming Cabal.

    A tiny fraction of those fabrications can be seen on these many pages:

    http://theglobalwarmingscam.blogspot.com

    Good reading to you.
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Uhuh.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Since you are obviously smitten by the late Carl Sagan, you might be interested to read some of my observations from his book you list at the bottom of every page you write here:


    Pale Blue Dot

    Page. 9 Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants (of Earth) by all those generals and emperors…. …how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.” (He impugns armed guardians of national security but never scientists or liberals.)

    P14 "It (prejudice) draws sustenance from the same psychic wellsprings as sexism, racism, nationalism, and the other deadly chauvinisms that plague our species.” (Dr. Sagan has many criticisms of others, but never of scientists and their "chauvinisms")

    p 29 "They (theologians) were so sure." (Prof Sagan sounds as if he is SURE that they are wrong, and that HE is right. Nobody is “so sure” of himself as a condescending scientist, like Carl Sagan.)

    P32 “In 1954 American survey, 75 percent of people polled were willing to state that the Sun is not alive; in 1898, only 30% would support so rash a proposition On whether an automobile tire can feel anything, 90 percent of respondents denied it emotions in 1954, but only 73 percent in 1989.. We can recognize here a shortcoming . . .” (Sagan was a teacher, and bears an inordinate responsibility for the “shortcoming” to which he refers so lamentingly. In “Cosmos”, he proposes ”revering Sun and the stars”, P 243)

    P57 " …poor planning (in the universe.) The evidence, so far at least and laws of Nature aside, does not require a Designer. (Sagan could have designed a much better one, no doubt. No arrogance here. Certainly no "chauvinism", thinking his planning abilities superior to those of God.)


    P 108 "Finding simple organic molecules …(on Titan) is tantalizing." (There are a lot of organic molecules being pumped up for use as gasoline. Is that “tantalizing” as well?)

    P114 "But liquid hydrocarbons are very underdense:" (Isaac Asimov too was a professional writer with a similarly "creative" vocabulary.)
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Lets examine a bit of your argument to see how robust your reasoning power is:

    Note that the base is not zero. This non-zero basis severely distorts the upward slope artificially, the better to mislead you.
    There's nothing artificial about it since it's based in real numbers and doesn't change the slope defined as rise of X units of Co2 over time. It does take one to actually understand the graph though, which I guess is too much for some people



    Far from being the ONLY greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is trivial in concentration compared to water vapor, which constitutes roughly 21,000 parts per million.
    Which neither address the effect per amount of the gas, or the duration of each. The half life for water vapor in the atmosphere is about a week, for Co2 it's hundreds to thousands of years. Water vapor is a dependent variable of temperature with positive feedback. Not too hard to understand.

    Next note that the metric for carbon dioxide is “ppm” or “parts per million.” Three hundred eighty parts per million is 0.00038.
    Do you consume arsenic? I mean just a few parts per million in your body is enough to end your short science forum contributions.

    Moreover, the creators of the “Scary Graph” imply that as miniscule as this annual increase, ~1 part per million per year of carbon dioxide is, all of it comes from humans. Not remotely true. Some 97% or so of it is naturally caused.
    The irony here is first you complain the graphics overemphasis the amount of the rise compared to the total and then complain that most of it is caused naturally....duh. We could get into the several fingerprints on Carbon isotopes, economic production of co2 and so forth but given the superficial and idiotic rigor of the original post am pretty sure it's far too advanced stuff to bother with at this point.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacNewton
    Since you are obviously smitten by the late Carl Sagan, you might be interested to read some of my observations from his book
    Wow. Quote mining and quotes shared completely out of context. Call me impressed, sir. Very impressed, indeed.
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There aught to be a law prohibiting dick heads from adopting the names of great scientists. Of course that remark has nothing to do with anything occuring in this thread.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    you know isaac, there is also a site online that is a creationist forum-ophiolite can tell you the address (science/religion forum-my current devce doesn't have multiple window capabilities). You posted a similar link with your global warming scam blog.
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Lets examine a bit of your argument to see how robust your reasoning power is:

    Note that the base is not zero. This non-zero basis severely distorts the upward slope artificially, the better to mislead you.
    There's nothing artificial about it since it's based in real numbers and doesn't change the slope defined as rise of X units of Co2 over time. It does take one to actually understand the graph though, which I guess is too much for some people





    You should moderate, and leave the science to others.

    THIS is the slope with a base of zero:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UeZlUJSTKE...omparison2.jpg


    THIS is the slope which you claim "doesn't change":

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UeZlUJSTKE...%27s+Graph.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by "Lynx_Fox
    Which neither address (sic) the effect per amount of the gas, or (sic) the duration of each. The half life for water vapor in the atmosphere is about a week, for Co2 it's hundreds to thousands of years. Water vapor is a dependent variable of temperature with positive feedback. Not too hard to understand.
    You are merely parroting talking points provided to you by other apologists for this Big Lie.

    1. For you to pretend that carbon dioxide resides in the atmosphere, virtually impervious to absorption by oceans, rivers, algae, or vegetation on land is the height of anti-science. The height.

    2. Notwithstanding your pretentious and erroneous oversight cited above, in Item #1 above, the length of time a molecule has been in situ is quite irrelevant to its reactivity.


    Do you consume arsenic? I mean just a few parts per million in your body is enough to end your short science forum contributions.
    The subject is global warming gases in the atmosphere, not arsenic in the human body. "Not too hard to understand." But only for people who truly seek understanding, and not obeisance to Global Warming Scams.

    The irony here is first you complain the graphics overemphasis (sic) the amount of the rise compared to the total and then complain that most of it is caused naturally....duh. We could get into the several fingerprints on Carbon (sic) isotopes, economic production of co2 and so forth but given the superficial and idiotic rigor of the original post am pretty sure it's far too advanced stuff to bother with at this point.
    http://<br /> <br /> The irony is th... <br /> <br />
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacNewton
    Since you are obviously smitten by the late Carl Sagan, you might be interested to read some of my observations from his book
    Wow. Quote mining and quotes shared completely out of context. Call me impressed, sir. Very impressed, indeed.
    I have not only read Sagan's books, but carefully taken notes verbatim from those books, and responded to Sagan's nonsense.

    You, on the other hand, engage in the cheapest sort of leftist tactic, viz. blathering inane comments of "out of context" without the slightest hint of verification.

    Terribly unscientific and anti-intellectual of you.
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacNewton
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacNewton
    Since you are obviously smitten by the late Carl Sagan, you might be interested to read some of my observations from his book
    Wow. Quote mining and quotes shared completely out of context. Call me impressed, sir. Very impressed, indeed.
    I have not only read Sagan's books, but carefully taken notes verbatim from those books, and responded to Sagan's nonsense.

    You, on the other hand, engage in the cheapest sort of leftist tactic, viz. blathering inane comments of "out of context" without the slightest hint of verification.

    Terribly unscientific and anti-intellectual of you.
    Define "leftist" in the context that you are using it please. Remember this is a global forum with a multinational membership, so the political term left can have very different connotation depending on the readers nationality.
     

  14. #13  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    His connotation is one where he intends little more than to disparage and sneer. It really matters not where on the globe one is. He has no point of merit.

    In the US, however, the conservatives tend to use "liberal" or "left" as if the term were an insult, and (whether they are aware of this or not) they use it to perpetuate the "us/them" mentality which is so prevalent in US culture right now. It ensures that we as a people avoid dealing with actual problems like mature adults since our focus is so heavily placed on divisions and the throwing of rhetorical feces.
     

  15. #14 Re: Fear and Anti-Science Using the "Scary Graph" 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacNewton

    Far from being the ONLY greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is trivial in concentration compared to water vapor, which constitutes roughly 21,000 parts per million.
    This is true, but water vapor rises any time the heat rises. It's a feedback effect, just like if you talk into a microphone while holding it next to the speaker.

    Carbon Dioxide plays the role of being your voice. That tiny whisper gets fed back through the system, raising heat, which raises moisture levels, which raises heat, which raises moisture levels...... etc..... until the new higher temperature causes the Earth to radiate enough additional heat into space to balance things again. That new higher temperature is permanent once created.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacNewton

    The irony is that you violate the very rules you are SUPPOSED to oversee.
    You're quite right. I'll allow this thread all the merit contained in the original post and lock it as an attempt at trolling.

    Isaac if you wish to start another that at least asks a seriuos question and attempts to make it a worthwhile discussion you are welcome.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •