Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Who is disputing methane gas? Are you calling CO2 a pollutant, yes or no?
yes. CO2 can be a pollutant.

just as Sodium, a mineral necessary for all life as we know it, can become toxic if the levels get too high, so too with carbon dioxide.

any time there is more of a substance than can be borne by the environment, that substance becomes toxic, and thus a pollutant

and before you get on your high horse and start squawking, Shit is also natural, essential for the life of plants, and perfectly normal, but a Big Greasy Deuce floating in your beer would be a Pollutant too.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I don't know why I respond to you.

i THOUGHT you were labouring under a misaprehension, and i wished to clear it up, notably that Methane is a more "potent" greenhouse gas than CO2, in that 1 kilo of methane can absorb and store 4x more heat energy than the same mass of CO2.
My Mistake.

only after your secondary Spittle Soaked, Knee Jerk response did i figure out that you were making a POLITICAL rather than scientific argument, so, you may now carry on frothing at the mouth unhindered.

if you make any erroneous statements i WILL correct them if i am able, but you can feel free to refrain from making any response.

in fact, it would be most appreciated if you chose to withhold your responses entirely unless you have something substantive to say.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
CO2 is not going to hurt you. Its not going to make the earth warmer. You're going to be just fine.
Try and relax, just smoke a :joint: and calm down.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
CO2 is not going to hurt you. Its not going to make the earth warmer. You're going to be just fine.
Try and relax, just smoke a :joint: and calm down.
uhh you are WRONG. just plain wrong.

NOBODY who has ever taken high school science can make a statement like that with a straight face.

even "Climate Deniers" (the ones who oppose AGW for scientific, not religious or political reasons) do not contend that the Greenhouse Effect is imaginary.

the bone of real contention is not IF human activity is causing warming, but rather (as i have said so fucking many times in this thread) "HOW MUCH?"!

human activity IS causing at least some of the warming we have experienced, and yes that warming is NOT FAKE.

read the materials i have cited in this thread for more information.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
junk science. blah blah blah. Al Gore blah blah. More junk science blah blah
if you were smart, you'd just keep your stupid mouth shut and let kynes do the talking. but instead, you're making your side look much worse.

no one ever accused you of being too smart though.

as the sole representative of white people in stockton, you are not doing a great job.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I have said it a long time ago. There is very little respect I have for Dr. Kynes. Sometime he makes perfect sense, and then other times he sounds like you, a total douche bag. He is not a conservative, but instead republican. The John McCain Lindsey Graham Cracker type.
no, he's more in the fashion of joseph mccarthy and john birch.

which, while deplorable, racist, and moronic, is still a big step up from the ted cruz and michelle bachmann vibe that you pollute this forum with.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
do you notice the correlation between CO2 and temps?



Get the bleep out of here. Are you serious? If thats all you've got, then you're a serious FAIL!

Even Al Gore could do better than that. You've got to make me feel guilty buck. Convince me I'm destroying the earth and the only way to save it is by giving more of my money to the government.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Convince me I'm destroying the earth and the only way to save it is by giving more of my money to the government.
is that why the government subsidizes renewable energy and energy efficient appliances which will save you money?

seems to contradict your wild conspiracy theory.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
no, he's more in the fashion of joseph mccarthy and john birch.

which, while deplorable, racist, and moronic, is still a big step up from the ted cruz and michelle bachmann vibe that you pollute this forum with.
Everything to you is a pollutant buck. Even CO2. Hell, maybe you should just flush yourself down a toilet and do the world a favor. That way we don't have to deal with all your methane farts.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
LOL! Show me one single piece of evidence that is reliable. All I have seen is crap science. Show me that CO2 causes global warming. Even more so, how do you stupid democrats and republicans explain the earth getting cooler with higher CO2 levels? Less tornadoes. Less hurricanes on record. Maybe plants like CO2. Have you retards ever thought of that? That maybe they need it to breathe and process photosynthesis. How can you grow weed and not know this?


try this 6th grade science experiment yourself:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

or read the history of the discovery of greenhouse effect here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

the greenhouse effect IS real, co2 IS a powerful heat store, but there are others more powerful, those gasses however are available in much smaller quantities (like Methane for example) then the abundant in increasing CO2
further, as the seas warm they release even more trapped CO2, increasing the warming.

man made emissions ARE present and ARE having an effect, the question is only "How Much"

your politically motivated assertions serve no purpose except to cause the true Believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming to dig in their heels, in the fallacious assumption that everyone who isnt on their side is a foolish semi-literate mouth-breathing troglodyte who only knows what he reads in the Bible.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Freedomworks.

it occurs to me, upon reflection that when i said:

no., you are wound too tight.

methane is a much more powerful Greenhouse gas than CO2.

release of large concentrations of methane (as well as copious quantities of CO2) from decaying vegetable matter is why jungles like the Amazon "Rainforest" are no longer described as "The Lungs Of The Earth" by the Eco-Press

this is a result of actual research, which is why you have probably never heard it before.

Easy Version(some inaccuracies):
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/jan/12/environment.climatechange

Hard version:
http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/16_4_BOSTON_04-72_0070.pdf

Protip: the largest source of Methane is not Man, or "Ruminating Livestock" but swamps, jungles and other "natural" and "protected ecospheres" where vegetable matter is consumed by bacterium.
thats why they call it "Swamp Gas"
you may have taken that as a personal slight, or an attack.

it was not intended as such, and my words were ill chosen.

a better expression of the idea represented in the bolded statement above would be:

"This is a result of Actual Scientific Research, which is why the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd entombed the idiotic "Lungs of the Earth" narrative under a ton of rubble and poured concrete over the top."

the Lungs of the Earth narrative was everywhere a decade or so ago, then it vansihed like a fart in a hurricane when it turned out "Rainforests" and "Wetlands" (thats jungles and swamps) actually consume only slightly more CO2 than they produce, yet produce massive amounts of Methane, a Greenhouse Gas 4x more powerful pound for pound than CO2.

i apologize if you took any offense to the above statement.

the other statements... yeah.

i meant those.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
a cheap swipe at some decade old theory that no one is talking about anymore disguised as an apology. cute.

that totally invalidates everything else that has been said and makes roy spencer a model scientist who totally doesn't believe in creationism over evolution.

yep.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
a cheap swipe at some decade old theory that no one is talking about anymore disguised as an apology. cute.

that totally invalidates everything else that has been said and makes roy spencer a model scientist who totally doesn't believe in creationism over evolution.

yep.
you still have not gone beyond "Roy Spencer has Religious Views and is thus unqualified to speak on any matter, regardless of other qualifications"

you have failed to argue any reason beyond your ad hominem attacks, and your blind hatred for his religious opinion to discredit his theories, his methodologies, or his conclusions.

and the "theory" was never a theory, NO science had been done to determine who much CO2 jungles consume for plant growth Vs how much they produce through wildlife (especially termites and fungi) and bacterial decomposition.

the NOTION which you generously call a "theory" was actually an advertising campaign to build support for the Rainforest Action Network, and several Eco-Fringe groups, like Earth First.

it was as devoid of scientific rigor as "Silent Spring", "The Population Bomb" and The Great Garbage Crisis of the early 80's

in other words, the authors pulled it out of their asses.

but like all great Eco-Loon notions, when it turns out to be BULLSHIT, they pretend it never existed, however, one pancake breakfast at the local church, temple mosque or synagoggue, and any scientist who disagrees with the eco-nauts is forever labeled a "religious nutcase"
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
you still have not gone beyond "Roy Spencer has Religious Views and is thus unqualified to speak on any matter, regardless of other qualifications"*
false.

having religious views and professing belief in creationism are two very different things.

creationists are still great people to ask for directions to the nearest church, or advice on how to abstain before marriage. creationists and science do not mix, however.

see the difference, monica?

...one pancake breakfast at the local church, temple mosque or synagoggue, and any scientist who disagrees with the eco-nauts is forever labeled a "religious nutcase"
i've had many pancake breakfasts before.

no matter how many pancakes i consume, there will never be any "scientific basis" for creationism. creationism is a scientifically untestable theory. "god did it" is scientifically unverifiable.

that's the type of "science" that you cite to back you up. no one was citing discredited, decade old "theories" that you have found occasion to rag on. however, you did cite a creationist.

fucking lame.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
LOL! Show me one single piece of evidence that is reliable. All I have seen is crap science. Show me that CO2 causes global warming. Even more so, how do you stupid democrats and republicans explain the earth getting cooler with higher CO2 levels? Less tornadoes. Less hurricanes on record. Maybe plants like CO2. Have you retards ever thought of that? That maybe they need it to breathe and process photosynthesis. How can you grow weed and not know this?
I don't like to see this side, because it doesn't further understanding. It just add contention and there is plenty already.

You are not capable of this discussion. No retards here. Nothing will grow at all, if the CO2 is above 2000 ppm, Atmos pressure of 1500 milibar, and surface temp of 130 F.

So, please leave the baby school naming calling out.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
false.

having religious views and professing belief in creationism are two very different things.

creationists are still great people to ask for directions to the nearest church, or advice on how to abstain before marriage. creationists and science do not mix, however.

see the difference, monica?



i've had many pancake breakfasts before.

no matter how many pancakes i consume, there will never be any "scientific basis" for creationism. creationism is a scientifically untestable theory. "god did it" is scientifically unverifiable.

that's the type of "science" that you cite to back you up. no one was citing discredited, decade old "theories" that you have found occasion to rag on. however, you did cite a creationist.

fucking lame.
and yet, Patricia (since applying girls names to the opposition is apparently how arguments are decided now) you have been unable yo provide any source for your assertion, other than "Religious Belief Makes His Research Invalid"

Galileo Galilee was also a creationist, and firmly believed the heavens and the earth were created by GAWD in 6 days.
yeah, he was such a tool, everything he said has been proved FALSE

Isaac Newton believed in ALCHEMY, and spent decades experimenting in secret trying to transmute lead into gold.
yeah, he was such a tool, everything he said has been proved FALSE


i could go on, but really why bother.
 
Top