Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[tvbcof]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

[1715684538]

1715684538

[1715684538]

1715684538

[1715684538]

1715684538

[Spendulus]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

Well, you describe traditional propaganda.  CAGW is acknowledged by ALL SIDES to be partly propaganda.  The thing is is that the Believers and Devout Faithful think that it's propaganda for a "good cause" and therefore is worthwhile.  The skeptics are just looking at the scientific findings and saying "Doesn't look very conclusive" and so forth.  Then in addition, the skeptics debunk the propaganda claims.

There is such a thing as propaganda for a good cause.

This is not it.  This is propaganda inside what used to be science.

[hdbuck]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

Well, you describe traditional propaganda.  CAGW is acknowledged by ALL SIDES to be partly propaganda.  The thing is is that the Believers and Devout Faithful think that it's propaganda for a "good cause" and therefore is worthwhile.  The skeptics are just looking at the scientific findings and saying "Doesn't look very conclusive" and so forth.  Then in addition, the skeptics debunk the propaganda claims.

There is such a thing as propaganda for a good cause.

This is not it.  This is propaganda inside what used to be science.

its really just about control and money: fear and (eco) taxes.

[Anon136]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

My daughter watches cartoons on cartoon network. And its even on there. In casual dialogue like its completely assumed to be true. That seems to be the tactic now, assume its true and ridicule anyone who questions it. The lack of a single accurate model predicting future trends be damned. If you can repeat the same dogma enough times than it becomes true, no need to establish credibility through accurate predictions in the past and use that credibility to earn serious consideration in your future predictions.

[Spendulus]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

My daughter watches cartoons on cartoon network. And its even on there. In casual dialogue like its completely assumed to be true. That seems to be the tactic now, assume its true and ridicule anyone who questions it. The lack of a single accurate model predicting future trends be damned. If you can repeat the same dogma enough times than it becomes true, no need to establish credibility through accurate predictions in the past and use that credibility to earn serious consideration in your future predictions.

Except that's what's been tried, and it's failed.  Propaganda REQUIRES naive propagators of the faith.  They are the pawns, and they are sincere.  Behind them are the schemers and manipulators. 

As for the modeling, it is possible to model climate, however, this is not what "climate models" are tasked to do.  You see, climate is long term trends.  Climate modeling is not figuring the temperatures of the next several years.  Further, modeling requires precise knowledge of heat sinks and emissions.  This would be the heat in the ocean and that released to space.  Precise knowledge of these factors we do not have.

Thus the errors in the unknowns vastly outweigh the knowns.

[Wilikon]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

My daughter watches cartoons on cartoon network. And its even on there. In casual dialogue like its completely assumed to be true. That seems to be the tactic now, assume its true and ridicule anyone who questions it. The lack of a single accurate model predicting future trends be damned. If you can repeat the same dogma enough times than it becomes true, no need to establish credibility through accurate predictions in the past and use that credibility to earn serious consideration in your future predictions.

[tvbcof]

...
<Goering>  "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

My daughter watches cartoons on cartoon network. And its even on there. In casual dialogue like its completely assumed to be true. That seems to be the tactic now, assume its true and ridicule anyone who questions it. The lack of a single accurate model predicting future trends be damned. If you can repeat the same dogma enough times than it becomes true, no need to establish credibility through accurate predictions in the past and use that credibility to earn serious consideration in your future predictions.

Within the last week or two I saw a news story in some financial rag with Hank Paulson saying that the climate change issue will be carried by the generation who are children today.  Damned if I can find it now.

Paulson is a power player and speaks to others in a form of code.  Especially in mediums such as the financial press.  I think it very strong hypothesis that he was talking about the education system among other things.  Many people link the U.S.'s new 'common core' federalized public education management and surveillance program to 'agenda 21', and for good reason as best I can tell.  I've read some of the curriculum, and it certainly is not difficult to imagine it being written with a very strong eye toward promotion of the agenda 21 action plan (which I've also read.)

Some of the curriculum associated with 'common core' is cherry-picked by detractors to be sure.  I've read my nephew's approved material and there is nothing untoward about it.  But the nightmare material turned up by the detractors is scary enough to speak for itself.  Anyway, the surveillance aspect of 'common core' is 100x more threatening than the actual curriculum anyway.  I can promise that it will be used to select the 'outer party' who will be managing us plebs going forward.

[arxwn]

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

Since Reddit or any other Internet entity exists in public out there, they can not deny any critisism. I think it is ironic if they do so.

[Wilikon]

What the mainstream media wont tell you about global warming



Between the recent “deal” with China, reports of Obama taking climate action via executive fiat, and the debate over keystone, global warming has been over the mainstream media recently. But instead of debating whether or not the global warming hypotheses is a valid threat to the Earth, the media starts with the premise that the theory is real and anybody who contests global warming is the equivalent of people who don’t believe the holocaust actually happened, they are called deniers.

The “LA Times” refuses to print letters that disagree with global warming, CNN openly mocks them on air, the NY Times ran a cartoon suggesting climate change skeptics should be stabbed to death, and MSNBC and CBS only interview climate change believers on their programs.

The fact that the liberal skewed media refuses to look at both sides of the climate argument should be evidence enough that they realize global warming theory is flawed. But as one who likes to use facts, below are twelve facts the mainstream media isn’t telling you about climate change. They may not make one believe that global warming is a fraud, but they should at least destroy the argument that climate change is settled science.

1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.

2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth.  Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).

3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponents keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).

4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.

5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.

6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.

7) You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them.  A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.

8 ) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, and the co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”
There are more like Moore.

9) Back to Ice Age– predictions. When I took Earth Science in college 38 years ago, the professor explained that the scientific consensus was we are heading toward an ice age.  That was just before text books were changed to discuss global warming. That was followed by calling it climate change. Now many scientists claim there is new evidence that the Earth may be heading toward an ice age (please stop crying Mr. Gore).

10) Droughts have not increased.

It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,”
Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

11) Polar Bears are alive and well and not dying out. In the Fall 2014 issue of RANGE Magazine Dr. Susan Crockford wrote,

“In a recent TV ad campaign, the Center for Biological Diversity said, “global warming is pushing polar bears to the absolute brink.” Results of recent research show this to be a lie – fat, healthy bears like this one from near Barrow, Alaska, are still common and many of the assumptions used by computer models to predict future disasters have turned out to be wrong.”
In case you were wondering, walruses are doing fine also.

12) No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:

We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.
The only thing “man-made” about global warming, is the argument that we should all stop thinking because there is a scientific consensus about global warming. There are too many questions still open.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just your general reminder of what this thread is about for those who've just joined us

[Anon136]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

My daughter watches cartoons on cartoon network. And its even on there. In casual dialogue like its completely assumed to be true. That seems to be the tactic now, assume its true and ridicule anyone who questions it. The lack of a single accurate model predicting future trends be damned. If you can repeat the same dogma enough times than it becomes true, no need to establish credibility through accurate predictions in the past and use that credibility to earn serious consideration in your future predictions.

Except that's what's been tried, and it's failed.  Propaganda REQUIRES naive propagators of the faith.  They are the pawns, and they are sincere.  Behind them are the schemers and manipulators. 

As for the modeling, it is possible to model climate, however, this is not what "climate models" are tasked to do.  You see, climate is long term trends.  Climate modeling is not figuring the temperatures of the next several years.  Further, modeling requires precise knowledge of heat sinks and emissions.  This would be the heat in the ocean and that released to space.  Precise knowledge of these factors we do not have.

Thus the errors in the unknowns vastly outweigh the knowns.

Yea sure I mean the weather channel does an ok job predicting the weather up to a week out but even by the time you get a week out it starts to get pretty unreliable. Two three of four weeks forget about it. And these guys want to model 100 years out? Give me a break.

[Spendulus]

Speaking of war, I got to thinking about one of my favorite quotes:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This actually maps fairly well to the CAGW thing and is a cut-out of how sheeple are induced to support nonsense wars.  The propaganda about the danger of catastrophic global climate change has been so strong and effective that anyone who doubts it is considered a threat to their fellow 'global citizens.'

My daughter watches cartoons on cartoon network. And its even on there. In casual dialogue like its completely assumed to be true. That seems to be the tactic now, assume its true and ridicule anyone who questions it. The lack of a single accurate model predicting future trends be damned. If you can repeat the same dogma enough times than it becomes true, no need to establish credibility through accurate predictions in the past and use that credibility to earn serious consideration in your future predictions.

Except that's what's been tried, and it's failed.  Propaganda REQUIRES naive propagators of the faith.  They are the pawns, and they are sincere.  Behind them are the schemers and manipulators. 

As for the modeling, it is possible to model climate, however, this is not what "climate models" are tasked to do.  You see, climate is long term trends.  Climate modeling is not figuring the temperatures of the next several years.  Further, modeling requires precise knowledge of heat sinks and emissions.  This would be the heat in the ocean and that released to space.  Precise knowledge of these factors we do not have.

Thus the errors in the unknowns vastly outweigh the knowns.

Yea sure I mean the weather channel does an ok job predicting the weather up to a week out but even by the time you get a week out it starts to get pretty unreliable. Two three of four weeks forget about it. And these guys want to model 100 years out? Give me a break.

It's not the "weather channel" these days.  It's truly huge supercomputers that have moved weather prediction from 1-3 days into 7-10 days.  This is an astonishing accomplishment.

Although I agree with you, climate prediction is possible on a different basis than weather - that being looking at overall heat accumulation.  As I noted (bolded above) we don't have knowledge of the parameters to plug into equations to do that.  In some ways long term climate is far simpler than weather.  For example the planet can be modeled as a grey body in physics.  Then the Naviar Stokes equations do not need to be used.  But, actually, climate models do use them and they argue for finer resolution (eg, more, better computers will enable better prediction).  No it won't.

Modeling as a grey body can almost be done with a hand calculator.  But if you don't know the radiant heat outflow to space or the inflow outflow from the oceans, it simply cannot be done.  It does not matter how fancy the computers are. 

It seems there are basic and fundamental questions of honesty.

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

[Spendulus]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

[hdbuck]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities."

What exactly does Photosynthesis have do with this...We're talking about mankind's contribution to the problem of global warming...

Why are you so stupid?

[RedDiamond]

Global warming hits Buffalo:



http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/11/19/wednesday-weather/19261905/

[hdbuck]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities."

What exactly does Photosynthesis have do with this...We're talking about mankind's contribution to the problem of global warming...

Why are you so stupid?

meh, photosynthesis is in the center of your stupid global warming problem. it is indeed a problem, just not the one you think.
You see, CO2 is the natural gaz vital for any vegetal to thrive (despite massive human deforestation) and it is such process that also allows us human to breath O2.
Hence, i want more CO2 as you blindly suggested "that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing".

now go away, its stupid people like you that are a threat to earth and mankind.

[Wilikon]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities."

What exactly does Photosynthesis have do with this...We're talking about mankind's contribution to the problem of global warming...

Why are you so stupid?

meh, photosynthesis is in the center of your stupid global warming problem. it is indeed a problem, just not the one you think.
You see, CO2 is the natural gaz vital for any vegetal to thrive (despite massive human deforestation) and it is such process that also allows us human to breath O2.
Hence, i want more CO2 as you blindly suggested "that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing".

now go away, its stupid people like you that are a threat to earth and mankind.

Well... I can't tell him/her to go away as this thread needs to never ban anyone, unlike the one on REDDIT. SHE/HE would ban us for sure, proof by calling anyone who does not agree with his/her superior brain stupid



To the contrary I say "Welcome to my little thread my dear Cum-In-Behind!"

[Wilikon]