I wonder how long this guy will last in his position?

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

The idea that human produced CO2 causes ... [Edited on 7-23-2018 by gnukid]

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Clearly, there is a level of CO2 % PPM that is dangerous to animal life. Today CO2 varies at about 400 PPM around earth and largely driven by non-anthropogenic sources such as volcanoes. In a closed meeting room, or let's say a plane, CO2 can reach 10,000 % PPM and people do not suffer harm. On the other hand, enclosed green houses gardens require CO2 input for maximum performance. Carbon has forever been known as the source of life. How you want to qualify that is up to you, but it doesn't change the fact that carbon is the driving life force on earth, without it we would die due to lack of available produced oxygen. The earth is not suffering from high CO2 by any demonstrable measure, nor high temperatures. Greenhouse gases are mostly H20 something like %70 and serve us well, greenhouse gas is not pollution. Or should we regulate and demonize H20, C02 and O2 since they are in greenhouse gasses and according to you and Al Gore are harmful? Perhaps it is time to focus on clearly demonstrated pollution like dumping chemicals, plastics and lack of sewage treatment? Instead of attacking with ad hominem personal attacks please make your point with some substance.

Before some of you focus on the earth burning up, suffocating, or flooding's "The Big One", a more clear and present danger to your country/planet is the dotard in the White House...

VERY DANGEROUS....

Voting can change that climate threat...

Make America America Again....

And, please, don't bother with "Shut up....it's not your country" type comments....global environmental issues will take longer to resolve....and it's up to all countries to address those issues...it's up to the American voters to clean up the insane mess of your current political nightmare....

Wake Up

Nomex on

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Clearly, there is a level of CO2 % PPM that is dangerous to animal life. Today CO2 varies at about 400 PPM around earth and largely driven by non-anthropogenic sources such as volcanoes. In a closed meeting room, or let's say a plane, CO2 can reach 10,000 % PPM and people do not suffer harm. On the other hand, enclosed green houses gardens require CO2 input for maximum performance.

oh ok ... so you're saying that the 200 million tons annually of CO2 from both land and undersea volcanos ... is MORE than the 24 BILLION tons annually of CO2 from automotive and industrial activities (USGS) ??

wow, very interesting math there on planet gnu



I'd carry on (like we've actually been in a solar MINIMUM with increased earth temps .... OOOps there goes the ridiculous sun argument) .... but history has shown what a colossal waste of time that would be.

ni modo

ps (and only b/c I'm a nice guy) the issue is not CO2 levels directly affecting humans ability to live ... it's the affect increased CO2 will have on habitat!!
seriously, you folks are embarrassing when it comes to this issue

Quote: Originally posted by motoged

Before some of you focus on the earth burning up, suffocating, or flooding's "The Big One", a more clear and present danger to your country/planet is the dotard in the White House... VERY DANGEROUS.... Voting can change that climate threat... Make America America Again.... And, please, don't bother with "Shut up....it's not your country" type comments....global environmental issues will take longer to resolve....and it's up to all countries to address those issues...it's up to the American voters to clean up the insane mess of your current political nightmare.... Wake Up Nomex on

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Saying CO2 is good therefore more is better is like saying if you want to be less fat you should eat less fat.

Quote: Originally posted by motoged

Before some of you focus on the earth burning up, suffocating, or flooding's "The Big One", a more clear and present danger to your country/planet is the dotard in the White House... VERY DANGEROUS.... Voting can change that climate threat... Make America America Again.... And, please, don't bother with "Shut up....it's not your country" type comments....global environmental issues will take longer to resolve....and it's up to all countries to address those issues...it's up to the American voters to clean up the insane mess of your current political nightmare.... Wake Up Nomex on

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Consider, that many things you were told are wrong and take time to do some research beyond a single source to multiple sources and think outside the box. As humans we have so much to learn and so little we know for certain.

If you took this great advice to heart ... you'd never say ridiculous things like "it's the volcanos" or "it's the sun" or be so out of touch claiming that CO2 level is 400ppm.

It's 2018 brah ... June's average CO2 was 410.79 ppm !! https://www.co2.earth/

Drag those knuckles into the 21st century!
Take the time. "Clearly", there's much for you to get up-to-speed on re climate.

A couple of climate change deniers changing the climate.

Lots of methane here as well. Methane has carbon therefore it's so good for you.

Chuckie mighta lost a few!??

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Is it time for the photos of the palm tree on the beach (1948-2017), yet? It is still no closer to being underwater at high tide! Stay cool everyone... Summer happens (every 12 months, over and over)!

only a genius would reference a tree at shoreline as appropriate sea level calibration ... on a tiny planet spinning at 1000mph at the equator!

where's my rubber ducky ... mommy's running a bath?

Yes, and only a blind person cannot SEE that the sea level over nearly 70 years is not rising in any amount to cause panic and hysteria that fuels some here.

looks to me like its getting closer.....

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Yes, and only a blind person cannot SEE that the sea level over nearly 70 years is not rising in any amount to cause panic and hysteria that fuels some here.

Quote: Originally posted by del mar

looks to me like its getting closer.....

Nope, it was just as close 70 years ago and even longer if anyone took photos before WWII there!

Here it is in 1952:



It is just a pretty place, but not the only place where you can compare past with the present. Alfonsina's would be an island as any other beach side resort and boat ramp, breakwater, etc.

Quote: Originally posted by del mar

looks to me like its getting closer.....

Quote: Originally posted by rts551

actual measurements of the mean sea level. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelera...

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Quote: Originally posted by rts551   actual measurements of the mean sea level. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelera... The article is fraudulent, reading the article it states that for 100 years up to 1993 they used tidal gauges and the sea rise was about ~1.1mm/yr or 4 inches for 100 years (though tidal gauges change based on sun/moon/salt content etc) then they report they changed to satellite data after 1993 and it surged to 3mm/yr or 11 inches in 100 years. Both readings, tidal gauge and satellite readings are fraudulently reported, they quote Michael Mann to support their findings who is at the heart of climate fraud whose emails showed the effort to "hide the decline" in temperature rise. As well the article quotes Narem, who states, "This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate, to more than 60 centimeters instead of about 30," which is not demonstrable but measurable data, as Antartic shows no increase in melt-off year/year at present and is stable. https://phys.org/news/2017-05-antarctic-central-ice-sheet-st... Yearly Antarctic variability is largely attributed to 100s of underwater volcanoes and hot water upwelling creating a highly diverse ecosystem. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/08/14/volcano... Unique locations may show variation in sea level based on many factors according to studies unrelated to global sea level change http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/Sea-Level_Study_12056_96.p... Sea levels have risen for 20,000 years with no evidence of increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

I say DK is doing a little photoshop work on his pics in his spare time

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid   Consider, that many things you were told are wrong and take time to do some research beyond a single source to multiple sources and think outside the box. As humans we have so much to learn and so little we know for certain. If you took this great advice to heart ... you'd never say ridiculous things like "it's the volcanos" or "it's the sun" or be so out of touch claiming that CO2 level is 400ppm. It's 2018 brah ... June's average CO2 was 410.79 ppm !! https://www.co2.earth/ Drag those knuckles into the 21st century! Take the time. "Clearly", there's much for you to get up-to-speed on re climate.

Quote: Originally posted by blackwolfmt

I say DK is doing a little photoshop work on his pics in his spare time

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Fallacious arguments abound: I never said an unlimited amount of CO2 is better, only that human contribution (%.04) to the current ~400PPM is not the driver of global and atmospheric temperatures demonstrably. Current temperatures are stable for some reasons, likely solar activity minimum as suggested. Yes, human contribution to CO2 is minimal, much less than animals, and volcanoes and oceanic and terra plant life breakdown, but it is hard to measure and know for sure. Humans do not drive Earth's CO2 and do not drive temperature while other factors, the Sun, volcanoes, animals, the ocean and organic plant material deterioration may be a driver of global CO2. Focus on things you control, like dumping depleted uranium bombs, chemicals, plastics, and destructive food/fish production. Consider, that many things you were told are wrong and take time to do some research beyond a single source to multiple sources and think outside the box. As humans we have so much to learn and so little we know for certain.

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid   Quote: Originally posted by rts551   actual measurements of the mean sea level. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelera... The article is fraudulent, reading the article it states that for 100 years up to 1993 they used tidal gauges and the sea rise was about ~1.1mm/yr or 4 inches for 100 years (though tidal gauges change based on sun/moon/salt content etc) then they report they changed to satellite data after 1993 and it surged to 3mm/yr or 11 inches in 100 years. Both readings, tidal gauge and satellite readings are fraudulently reported, they quote Michael Mann to support their findings who is at the heart of climate fraud whose emails showed the effort to "hide the decline" in temperature rise. As well the article quotes Narem, who states, "This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate, to more than 60 centimeters instead of about 30," which is not demonstrable but measurable data, as Antartic shows no increase in melt-off year/year at present and is stable. https://phys.org/news/2017-05-antarctic-central-ice-sheet-st... Yearly Antarctic variability is largely attributed to 100s of underwater volcanoes and hot water upwelling creating a highly diverse ecosystem. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/08/14/volcano... Unique locations may show variation in sea level based on many factors according to studies unrelated to global sea level change http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/Sea-Level_Study_12056_96.p... Sea levels have risen for 20,000 years with no evidence of increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid] Tonga created a climate change trust fund to deal with some of the financial issues around sea level change of their low lieing nation. Newkid, does your trust fund have contingency plan for sea level change?

High Tide 2018

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Quote: Originally posted by blackwolfmt   I say DK is doing a little photoshop work on his pics in his spare time I wouldn't know how, but I am glad your eyes are working and you see the obvious. Another place you can see that sea levels are not higher is at all the salt flats next to the ocean and lagoons... they are still not underwater all the time! Being just inches above average high tide, they would be the first areas flooded permanently by rising sea level.

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666   Quote: Originally posted by gnukid   Quote: Originally posted by rts551   actual measurements of the mean sea level. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelera... The article is fraudulent, reading the article it states that for 100 years up to 1993 they used tidal gauges and the sea rise was about ~1.1mm/yr or 4 inches for 100 years (though tidal gauges change based on sun/moon/salt content etc) then they report they changed to satellite data after 1993 and it surged to 3mm/yr or 11 inches in 100 years. Both readings, tidal gauge and satellite readings are fraudulently reported, they quote Michael Mann to support their findings who is at the heart of climate fraud whose emails showed the effort to "hide the decline" in temperature rise. As well the article quotes Narem, who states, "This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate, to more than 60 centimeters instead of about 30," which is not demonstrable but measurable data, as Antartic shows no increase in melt-off year/year at present and is stable. https://phys.org/news/2017-05-antarctic-central-ice-sheet-st... Yearly Antarctic variability is largely attributed to 100s of underwater volcanoes and hot water upwelling creating a highly diverse ecosystem. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/08/14/volcano... Unique locations may show variation in sea level based on many factors according to studies unrelated to global sea level change http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/Sea-Level_Study_12056_96.p... Sea levels have risen for 20,000 years with no evidence of increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid] Tonga created a climate change trust fund to deal with some of the financial issues around sea level change of their low lieing nation. Newkid, does your trust fund have contingency plan for sea level change? Fraud for financial gain in sea level rise reported in the pacific islands has been identified for some ten years with some politicians prosecuted. National Geographic reports a land increase of 3% during the same period. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-so... Additional sources showing fraud in pacific island sea level rise https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbo... Pacific Islands growing not shrinking http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/03/pacific_islands_ok?p... There is little to no discernible sea level rise over 2000 years, trends show downward movement while there is clearly identifiable sea level fraud for financial gain to claim sea level rise and demand compensation. https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/sea-level-scam/ [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid   Fallacious arguments abound: I never said an unlimited amount of CO2 is better, only that human contribution (%.04) to the current ~400PPM is not the driver of global and atmospheric temperatures demonstrably. Current temperatures are stable for some reasons, likely solar activity minimum as suggested. Yes, human contribution to CO2 is minimal, much less than animals, and volcanoes and oceanic and terra plant life breakdown, but it is hard to measure and know for sure. Humans do not drive Earth's CO2 and do not drive temperature while other factors, the Sun, volcanoes, animals, the ocean and organic plant material deterioration may be a driver of global CO2. Focus on things you control, like dumping depleted uranium bombs, chemicals, plastics, and destructive food/fish production. Consider, that many things you were told are wrong and take time to do some research beyond a single source to multiple sources and think outside the box. As humans we have so much to learn and so little we know for certain. Volcanoes again? "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and is the primary gas blamed for climate change. While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. In 2010, human activities were responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions. All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. While it has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions, this is a topic of scientific debate at present." https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html I might add that those possible volcanic extinctions occurred as a result of immense volcanic fields erupting over thousands of years (The Siberian and Deccan Trap episodes). We are vaporizing 200 million years of carbon that has been locked up in the Earth's crust in the span of a couple centuries. I grant you that in previous interglacial periods like this current one 400 ppm was reached before man was barely a twinkle of an influence on the environment. However we are accelerating that milestone before other past interglacial timelines. Time will tell.

AGW is a theory that is not proven by any means. Volcanos emit more than CO2, they emit ash,sediment and other chemicals and have shown to destroy humanity while human generated CO2 has not been demonstrated to be harmful while it is demonstrated to be the symbiotic plant life force of our earth. There are hundreds and hundreds of volcanos many of them below the surface of the water or terra firmaand few if any are studied up close when active. More study of volcanos is needed.

Quote: Originally posted by rts551

One of your sources, Dr Morner, claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. A real scientific approach. Think a will stay with real science.

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Quote: Originally posted by rts551   One of your sources, Dr Morner, claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. A real scientific approach. Think a will stay with real science. If you want to show that one of the article's quotes is wrong, why not highlight the quote and demonstrate from sources why it's wrong, instead of making non-sourced rumored accusations if you are so familiar with the literature otherwise it appears that your attempts to call into question the validity of the date sources are just personal attacks. This is an example of the straw man argument, using fallacious logic. I made no mention or attribution to claims about using sticks to find water or identify Curry and Hartmann lines. You brought up the topic and attributed it to my argument and the sources while it has no reference, bearing or place other than to distract and attempt to associate me with straw man for you to knock down. Fallacious arguments, such as the straw man are used by people who have no facts to present to make their point or refute others points and instead use fallacious arguments to distract the discussion and claim to disprove by association to a false claim. Furthermore, to suggest that a scientist who theorizes on many topics and pursues research only to determine that a theory is proven to be incorrect, it doesn't disprove or cloud all other research. The suggestion that one disproven theory disproves all other research is also fallacious logic or argument by association. [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Record Low July 2018 Temperatures in Southern U.S., Alabama at 49 Degrees Is this a significant trend or an anomaly? Either way, here is a source of temperature reading today showing no significant increase in temperature, while in fact showing a cooling trend for the region. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/record-low-july-t... [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

oh my goodness. Are you serious? or maybe just trolling??
Did you even read the article? It's right there! The jet stream.
Are you clueless re 'climate 101' basics like ... the historically mildly meandering northern jet stream, is now wildly meandering due to the new temperature gradient (and consequently pressure gradient) re equator vs north pole. (the north is heating 3-4 times faster than what's happenning at equator)

This is elementary stuff! If you'd taken your own great advice previously mentioned ... then you'd at least know the basics.
(Snowball in congress anyone?? :lol

ni modo

ps and what is this 'source of temperature readings ..." you mentioned?? Do you mean the article linked?
I'm beginning to think you're either a lil coco for coco puffs, or just intellectually lazy. No offense intended.

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

While the earth has experienced much higher CO2 over the past 20,000 years - up to 10,000 PPM well before the industrial revolution - [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

The overall global CO2 has been surprisingly stable for some time, while at the same time USA and Europe are decreasing CO2 output year to year, though unfortunately China and India did not. Good job USA https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-... [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

It has NOT been stable
And if it's no problem ... why is it 'unfortunate' that China and India have not reduced CO2 output ??

just wow

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Du gjorde min poäng igen. tack Mörner svar: https://www.thegwpf.com/nils-axel-morner-these-researchers-h...

Your guys counterparts in the Arctic, would probably beg to differ if the climate and sea water levels are rising because things are happening fast up in the Arctic, compared to the much slower Baja.

Quote: Originally posted by del mar

looks to me like its getting closer.....

Reconstructing past measurements of CO2 or temperatures often use ice cores which require interpretation and may be approximate.

Some say the earth had 20,000 PPM CO2 450,000,000 years and 10,000 PPM CO2 400,000,000 years ago, not 20,000.

Obviously, historical estimates are generally accepted as reference only.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05314-1

It's not worth arguing about, except to observe that prior to human contribution at present on earth, CO2 was higher than today and our current atmospheric CO2 is not a demonstrable driver of temperature which is the topic of this discussion, as opposed to hurling personal attacks.





[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

For your consideration:

Some scientists estimate that historically temperature variability was far more common then in recent ~20,000 year history.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05314-1

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Reconstructing past measurements of CO2 or temperatures often use ice cores which require interpretation and may be approximate. Some say the earth had 20,000 PPM CO2 450,000,000 years and 10,000 PPM CO2 400,000,000 years ago, not 20,000.

I think i've gotten to the bottom of it........

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

The point is to continue to make dire catastrophic predictions about man made global warming caused by CO2 is silly at this point. No evidence exist tying human generated CO2 to global temperature. Not one poster here has provided any evidence nor made any substantial point other than to deny the obvious facts that humans contribute very little CO2 ~.04% to the atmosphere and there is no connection showing CO2 as a driver for temperature, quite the opposite. Clearly CO2 is important to our symbiotic relationship to plants as a life force of the earth. To call CO2 or green gas house gasses pollution is to greatly misunderstand the earth. Far more interesting would be to consider cycles and variations as normal, stability rare, and ask what drives solar system cycles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle Earth's cyclical changes are also an area to pursue as a driver of temperature such as the Milankovitch orbital elliptical variation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles In any case, adults should be able to present their thoughts without contributors hurling degrading dialogue, fallacious logic, personal insults and grandstanding while failing to providing any reference to facts. [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

In any case, adults should be able to present their thoughts without contributors hurling degrading dialogue, fallacious logic, personal insults and grandstanding while failing to providing any reference to facts.... [Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Clearly there are two camps. I acknowledged and linked to the theory that ice cores shows 10,000 PPM prior to humans on earth which makes my point even more so. thanks

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Bezzell "I wonder if climate change deniers are Kremlin funded?" JJJ "All of them reject climate change? What is role of Kremlin?"

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid   Bezzell "I wonder if climate change deniers are Kremlin funded?" JJJ "All of them reject climate change? What is role of Kremlin?" Now that's incredible even by your standards. It's Putin's fault!!! A few years ago you compared Obama to Hitler and now Global Warming is a Kremlin conspiracy. What could be more logical? I don't why you bother to take the time to gather these scraps of information here and there. When you make statements like that you reveal who you really are. A looney.

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Bezzell "I wonder if climate change deniers are Kremlin funded?" JJJ "All of them reject climate change? What is role of Kremlin?"

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe   Quote: Originally posted by gnukid   Bezzell "I wonder if climate change deniers are Kremlin funded?" JJJ "All of them reject climate change? What is role of Kremlin?" Now that's incredible even by your standards. It's Putin's fault!!! A few years ago you compared Obama to Hitler and now Global Warming is a Kremlin conspiracy. What could be more logical? I don't why you bother to take the time to gather these scraps of information here and there. When you make statements like that you reveal who you really are. A looney. Skipjack I have never compared someone to Hitler, that is an extremely inappropriate lie and clearly you can't take a topical joke about Kremlin.

Quote: Originally posted by rts551

I take it you have not converted like this guy. You whole assumption is there is a false narrative rather than examining the science as Bridenstine was forced to do. real false narrative " at a climate hearing this week, Republican members of the House Science Committee said that the Earth is not warming (it is), that rocks falling into the ocean are causing sea level rise (they aren’t), and that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing bigger (it’s not)." [Edited on 7-23-2018 by rts551]

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Climate Change: The worst scientific scandal of our generation "Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbo...

Great to see effort to communicate your thoughts on human generated CO2 driving temperature and the costs to the individual and state of CO2 as a commodity, as in Carbon Credits, trading, and taxes.

Is CO2 pollution?

What are your thoughts on global temperature charts showing no overall temperature in crease in about ~20 years as shown in this diagram and published paper. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

In regard to Obama's evolution of thought, finally, which seems appropriate here for his fans, it appears he has come full circle, revealing that he believes it is failure of the democratic to subscribe to identity politics, and that people should “engage with people not only who look different but who hold different views.” “And you can’t do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponents have to say from the start. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-critique-of-identity-politics...

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

When sharing an article or study, it doesn't mean the poster agrees with everything the article or author has ever stated in their life and that every person quoted and everything they ever said is affirmed as my own, in fact I point out studies because they include sources that may be evaluated in support or denial of the topic we are discussing, instead of using phrases when you disagree like the "he is a kook" which has no substance nor weight, if you disagree with a study, published paper, or it's contributors, or author or the original poster, state why and find sources to back-up your view to reference. I am not sure when in the history of thought did identifying source mean you agree with everything the authors of contributors ever said? It seems like a recent phenomenon to ascribe every action of one individual to another person, which is absurd. For example, I appreciate Benjamin Franklin, Issac Newton, and Pythagorus but I don't agree with everything they ever said or did, I don't agree at all but that doesn't stop me from occasionally referencing their work I do agree with.

Quote: Originally posted by lewmt

"And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion." You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion? Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent. Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith

Quote: Originally posted by lewmt

"And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion." You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion? Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent. Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith

Quote: Originally posted by rts551

Quote: Originally posted by lewmt   "And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion." You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion? Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent. Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith Same can be said of the deniers... you have obviously bonded.

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Great Dialogue - Some Questions Where does oil come from? Is oil CO2? Is oil abiotic or biotic or both? Meaning does it only come from fossils or all organic material or from rocks too? Was oil created at one time and is no longer produced? Is oil constantly being produced by the earth's processes? Is there more oil or less today than 500,000 years ago? If oil is being constantly produced what will happen is we stop converting it and it begins to pool up and become an excess at the surface of earth? When we convert oil to energy and output CO2, does CO2 become oil again at some point? What is sustainable energy? Does solar/wind electricity have a carbon footprint? What are signs of a shortage of CO2? What would happen if CO2 PPM was reduced by 50% or 100%? [Edited on 7-26-2018 by gnukid]