The Global Warming Scam!

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Hi there! No, I'm quite serious. Should Mr. Gnome attempt to engage me further other than to ask for information, then I'll let him have his last word. There is no point in "debate" because few have ever lost an argument in the history of humanity. TL;DR
Which only shows your arrogance and why your comment is essentially invalidated.
 
Last edited:

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
Which only shows your arrogance and why your comment is essentially invalidated.
I'm confused. My point, that arguments can't be won, says nothing at all about me. Anyway, you have a good day.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
I'm confused. My point, that arguments can't be won, says nothing at all about me. Anyway, you have a good day.
I was not specifically talking about whether arguments can be won or not but rather that your entire first full sentence stinks of arrogance beyond measure.
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
I was not specifically talking about whether arguments can be won or not but rather that your entire first full sentence stinks of arrogance beyond measure.
Yeah, unfortunately the internet sometimes prevents stink from transmitting but it always allows it to be imagined. I think I'll stop replying since you're a tad colicky (or I'm imagining it!) :)
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Yeah, unfortunately the internet sometimes prevents stink from transmitting but it always allows it to be imagined. I think I'll stop replying since you're a tad colicky (or I'm imagining it!) :)
Yes, well I think you might have the same problem.
Dude, your story reeks more than a week-old diaper and is so full of holes, well, you got the floor wet.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I think you just invalidated anything in your actual comment.

Edit: Also if you think you know so much about Climate change, then what do you think we should have as a source of widespread power? Chances are you'll go with Wind and Solar energy which are more expensive in terms of energy production than Nuclear power.
I agree with this, it would been best to keep that t your self, state some facts and quickly get to the point. I think docbrown here could made some nice points without some of this extra fluff.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
I agree with this, it would been best to keep that t your self, state some facts and quickly get to the point. I think docbrown here could made some nice points without some of this extra fluff.
That I so agree, and the whole point of the climate change discussion is to have a debate anyway, if you refuse to have a debate then you cannot have a discussion or exchange ideas.
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
184
Role
Diaper Lover
Yes I know the ozone layer has nothing to with CO2 thats what im pointing out. Its more likely the Ozone hole was created by testing nuclear missiles up in the ozone layer.
No, it was caused by chloroflourocarbons - I believe Methane can also break down atmospheric ozone. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The chemical interactions that break down atmospheric ozone are well known. They're proven reactions. As I pointed out, atmospheric nuclear tests were banned in 1963, yet the ozone hole got worse until CFCs were banned in 1986.

You talk about "political scientists" versus "independent scientists". Yet it seems that to you a political scientist is one whose data and results conflict with your own political views, as if your views (instead of the data) were objective truth. If you believe that nuclear weapons caused the ozone hole, please explain how the process works to break down ozone, and why it lingered for so long and continued after testing ceased. Is it the radiation, and if so, is it alpha, beta or gamma radiation? Maybe it's free neutrons. Maybe it's the EMPs. Show your work and your hypothesis.

Otherwise you are being exactly what you claim to dislike - "political", refusing to accept well-known data.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
No, it was caused by chloroflourocarbons - I believe Methane can also break down atmospheric ozone. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The chemical interactions that break down atmospheric ozone are well known. They're proven reactions. As I pointed out, atmospheric nuclear tests were banned in 1963, yet the ozone hole got worse until CFCs were banned in 1986.

You talk about "political scientists" versus "independent scientists". Yet it seems that to you a political scientist is one whose data and results conflict with your own political views, as if your views (instead of the data) were objective truth. If you believe that nuclear weapons caused the ozone hole, please explain how the process works to break down ozone, and why it lingered for so long and continued after testing ceased. Is it the radiation, and if so, is it alpha, beta or gamma radiation? Maybe it's free neutrons. Maybe it's the EMPs. Show your work and your hypothesis.

Otherwise you are being exactly what you claim to dislike - "political", refusing to accept well-known data.
I skipped the first post and doc browns so forgive me if this was addressed.

Keep in mind the ice we have up north, and the permafrost is sealing away Methane, adding to this fear of no return in 12 years. (Note this is not fear mongering of doomsday where the life will end, but if nothing changes, this is at the point where our climate is going to have drastic shifts that will not change back to what we see now. This can mean areas are rendered uninhabitable be it due to changes in rain, to being submerged underwater on the coast.

From my understanding, it seems it was overestimated how much effect is happening now, but what about the future? Something recent I found
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/fears-that-ancient-methane-could-add-to-warming-may-be-unfounded/3008540.article
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
No, it was caused by chloroflourocarbons - I believe Methane can also break down atmospheric ozone. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The chemical interactions that break down atmospheric ozone are well known. They're proven reactions. As I pointed out, atmospheric nuclear tests were banned in 1963, yet the ozone hole got worse until CFCs were banned in 1986.

You talk about "political scientists" versus "independent scientists". Yet it seems that to you a political scientist is one whose data and results conflict with your own political views, as if your views (instead of the data) were objective truth. If you believe that nuclear weapons caused the ozone hole, please explain how the process works to break down ozone, and why it lingered for so long and continued after testing ceased. Is it the radiation, and if so, is it alpha, beta or gamma radiation? Maybe it's free neutrons. Maybe it's the EMPs. Show your work and your hypothesis.

Otherwise you are being exactly what you claim to dislike - "political", refusing to accept well-known data.
Absolutely. The issue isn't about debating in an open fashion because that is exactly what science is and what science has been doing "forever". The issue is that people with zero expertise insist on ignoring the answers that scientists (and folks like you) give and instead bring up the same old goop that has already been discussed and answered bazillions of times. Like I said originally, unless you agree that we MUST "debate" cigarettes and cancer forever and ever and ever, along with whether gravity exists, and whether the Earth is spherical, well, eventually good people lose patience. And frankly, at this point it is impossible to be a thinking and open-minded person and want to "debate" this issue yet again. The question is whether they want to learn.

And remember, the OP was incredibly insulting. Calling my heroes scam artists with zero evidence or cause is fighting words. Tamino, who runs the Open Mind blog, says that they're "Proud to be Stupid", so proud that if somebody states that the Earth is NOT flat and to "debate" it isn't on the table anymore then that's arrogant. No, it's humility. I accept that climate scientists are actual humans and actual experts and I act appropriately - like a student.

I have to add: this isn't fun and games anymore. Scientists are now saying that if we don't drop emissions 50% dang near immediately and 80% shortly thereafter the sh*t is going to get way way way real. Insects are already dying off and they're the base of the food chain. When I was younger car windshields and bumpers had to be cleaned regularly because of all the dead bugs.

Not all insects… Bark beetles are having a grand time killing off our forests. The first rule of extinction events is that the more you want to something to survive the more likely it is that it won't and the species humans dislike (rats, roaches, fleas, ticks, malaria et al) will likely thrive.

Did you know they just found out the Thwaites glacier, the one holding back 11 feet of sea level rise has a manhattan-sized hole underneath it that has melted in three years? That in a few more decades the "job" might be done (the timeframe has lots of uncertainty, though) and the coasts go permanently underwater, and not in a one-time fashion, but again and again for a thousand years or more as each new "coastline" becomes "seabed"?

There is no time to accommodate the "proud to be stupid". We need to save the planet. I challenge the OP to go to RealClimate.org, read the "start here" tab, and report back what he's learned.
 
Last edited:

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
18,845
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
There was an article today in The Washington Post stating that natural gas produces half the emissions than coal. I would have thought that it would have been less. Our power companies here in Virginia have switched from coal to natural gas. The thing to remember about natural gas however is that in pumping and refining petroleum, that also produces CO 2 emissions as well.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Absolutely. The issue isn't about debating in an open fashion because that is exactly what science is and what science has been doing "forever". The issue is that people with zero expertise insist on ignoring the answers that scientists (and folks like you) give and instead bring up the same old goop that has already been discussed and answered bazillions of times. Like I said originally, unless you agree that we MUST "debate" cigarettes and cancer forever and ever and ever, along with whether gravity exists, and whether the Earth is spherical, well, eventually good people lose patience. And frankly, at this point it is impossible to be a thinking and open-minded person and want to "debate" this issue yet again. The question is whether they want to learn.

And remember, the OP was incredibly insulting. Calling my heroes scam artists with zero evidence or cause is fighting words. Tamino, who runs the Open Mind blog, says that they're "Proud to be Stupid", so proud that if somebody states that the Earth is NOT flat and to "debate" it isn't on the table anymore then that's arrogant. No, it's humility. I accept that climate scientists are actual humans and actual experts and I act appropriately - like a student.

I have to add: this isn't fun and games anymore. Scientists are now saying that if we don't drop emissions 50% dang near immediately and 80% shortly thereafter the sh*t is going to get way way way real. Insects are already dying off and they're the base of the food chain. When I was younger car windshields and bumpers had to be cleaned regularly because of all the dead bugs.

Not all insects… Bark beetles are having a grand time killing off our forests. The first rule of extinction events is that the more you want to something to survive the more likely it is that it won't and the species humans dislike (rats, roaches, fleas, ticks, malaria et al) will likely thrive.

Did you know they just found out the Thwaites glacier, the one holding back 11 feet of sea level rise has a manhattan-sized hole underneath it that has melted in three years? That in a few more decades the "job" might be done (the timeframe has lots of uncertainty, though) and the coasts go permanently underwater, and not in a one-time fashion, but again and again for a thousand years or more as each new "coastline" becomes "seabed"?

There is no time to accommodate the "proud to be stupid". We need to save the planet. I challenge the OP to go to RealClimate.org, read the "start here" tab, and report back what he's learned.
Yes I think it sucks sounding like a broken record but at the same time you need to drop the condensing tone like your first post here. Our job is to at least people to question the propaganda they are presented, doing it your way in your first post is only going to have people backlash at you. We want people to recognize there is a problem, and doing so means you have to adjust to who you speaking to. You shut them off, it is less people willing to make changes. Being open and civil about the issue, you may get them to recolonize that is propaganda and make them think.

Did you notice I at least got them to recognize both sides are trying to make money off this some form or another? except the money being earned to fight global warming can be used to help the cause, not some rich cooperation get richer.
 
Last edited:

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Mr. Gnome,

Search engines and sites combine to create echo chambers where inaccuracies and flat-out falsehoods proliferate. Plain and simple: you're 100% wrong and frankly, you should step out of that echo chamber. Now, I'm not interested in "debating", but I happen to know a TON about climate, so if you want information, if you want to learn, then I'll be happy to educate you. But for now, I'll just paint a picture:

Remember the geeks/nerds in high school? The ones who talked science and wondered which top tier college they'd choose? Yeah, big brains and often socially inept. Much of their problem was that they had trouble with lying, so much trouble that they'd stammer out caveats to ensure that their statements were accurate.

But they had big brains and could write their own ticket anywhere. They could become hedge fund multi-millionaires. They'd work in an amazing office with grand views (especially of the hot chicks who'd fetch whatever the Master of the Universe desires). But instead they chose to become climate scientists because they were so greedy that they upgraded to working in a cramped cinderblock office and getting their own stale brew.

Essentially all climate scientists say you're wrong. Do a Google on "97%" and remember that that figure is way out of date. I'm sure it's closer to 99% by now. So, your stance is that 99% of these folks who have an incredible aversion to lying and who check and shred each other's work looking for errors, any errors to triumphantly expose, and who desperately fear having an error in their paper that will get revealed (the shame! You soiled your paper), and chose to forego great wealth are greedy liars who DON'T compete with each other for fame but conspire to all fail miserably in a way that WILL inevitably be exposed? ALL climate scientists are corrupt AND don't care that their reputations will be shredded?? Well, except the three or four same old players who also claim that cigarettes are harmless?

So, if you're not 100% sure that cigarettes are harmless start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Dude, your story reeks more than a week-old diaper and is so full of holes, well, you got the floor wet.

Again, if you want to learn about climate science, just let me know.
Someone who refuses to debate or hear both sides is not worthy of an educated opinion! You have to know your enemy to properly fight them. So your telling me just because someone is a geek or nerd their uncompatible of lying? Wow what a laugh! I have known many IT Techs in my field that definitely lie and even try to screw customers over. And why should I believe what you tell me is 100 percent true? You make me sound like I'm some kind of hardcore neo republican saying screw the environment. I did not state global warming is not happening, what I question is why it's really happening? I mean really Doc Brown you really support taxing cows farting, and humans breathing? That's where the whole movement gets very loony and political. And really think of the money these scammers will make on everything outputting Co2 including humans? You expect me to buy that crap? I guess all the Independent Scientist that also studied climate change are all wrong according to you? Why don't we debate increased solar flares and how the affects the temperatures on earth? Do you remember the slight polar shift about 7 years ago? All the airports had adjust their coordinates for the shift. I think the cause to global warming has a hell alot more to do with other causes than the scary CO2 monster! I think changing over to hemp plastics rather crude oil products, would be start to at least cleaning up the plastic in the ocean. But again we don't hear paris agreement activist talking about solving that problem. I think that's hell alot more important than CO2 Doc Brown! Oh and Doc Brown would you like to talk about hemp based plastics or is that forbidden by your almighty political scientist gods?
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I think you just invalidated anything in your actual comment.

Edit: Also if you think you know so much about Climate change, then what do you think we should have as a source of widespread power? Chances are you'll go with Wind and Solar energy which are more expensive in terms of energy production than Nuclear power.
My problem with nuclear energy is the core cannot be shut down. Especially after the fukushima nuclear meltdown and still to this today dumping radioactive material in the pacific ocean. I thing Hydro and magnetics sources power should be further researched. I mean hell we could burn Hemp oil at least to help with the transition away from the more dirty stuff. I mean the original car did run off it. And if it was grown organic, I don't see how burning it would release any toxic chemicals. It at least be cheaper and cleaner than coal or oil!
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
No, it was caused by chloroflourocarbons - I believe Methane can also break down atmospheric ozone. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The chemical interactions that break down atmospheric ozone are well known. They're proven reactions. As I pointed out, atmospheric nuclear tests were banned in 1963, yet the ozone hole got worse until CFCs were banned in 1986.

You talk about "political scientists" versus "independent scientists". Yet it seems that to you a political scientist is one whose data and results conflict with your own political views, as if your views (instead of the data) were objective truth. If you believe that nuclear weapons caused the ozone hole, please explain how the process works to break down ozone, and why it lingered for so long and continued after testing ceased. Is it the radiation, and if so, is it alpha, beta or gamma radiation? Maybe it's free neutrons. Maybe it's the EMPs. Show your work and your hypothesis.

Otherwise you are being exactly what you claim to dislike - "political", refusing to accept well-known data.
If I was actually was able to do the test myself and the results concluded my opinion was incorrect I would accept those facts as truth. My problem is the way political scientist get their data. I don't like that they highly involved with politicians and governments and funded by conflict of interest. I believe their are many scientist that agree with me that funding needs to come from an Independent source and not influenced by politics. I rather doubt you or I know what possible damage the testing of nuclear bomb would done to the ozone layer. I believe it's very possible but not certain it caused the hole.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Someone who refuses to debate or hear both sides is not worthy of an educated opinion! You have to know your enemy to properly fight them. So your telling me just because someone is a geek or nerd their uncompatible of lying? Wow what a laugh! I have known many IT Techs in my field that definitely lie and even try to screw customers over.
See what I mean Docbrown? You pretty much defeat getting more people on your side acting like that
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
My problem with nuclear energy is the core cannot be shut down. Especially after the fukushima nuclear meltdown and still to this today dumping radioactive material in the pacific ocean. I thing Hydro and magnetics sources power should be further researched. I mean hell we could burn Hemp oil at least to help with the transition away from the more dirty stuff. I mean the original car did run off it. And if it was grown organic, I don't see how burning it would release any toxic chemicals. It at least be cheaper and cleaner than coal or oil!
Something might be good to watch:
Do you worry about flying? because the radiation levels are higher there.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I did watch the videos you posted and do appreciate the guy going as far as doing his own experiments and not just talk. And I do agree the fukushima has been exaggerated, but my problem being is there hasn't been any long term studies on DNA damage from radiation. And especially how some genetic diseases, don't start to appear until after the 3rd generation of offspring. I'm worried about males sperm being mutated and causing problems to the the future gens. These types of studies are short term studies. I find alot of us are playing russian roulette not doing long term studies. And with all the cancer in the world we should be thinking about making this stuff safer. .I still don't see the logic in using nuclear power and taking even slight risk when we could just use hemp, which is extremely cheap to grow. You do know oil companies biggest competitor was the hemp business and that's why many believe they demonized cannabis and hemp? Especially when they used hemp oil to power the first car, the oil companies were determined to destroy it!
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
I skipped the first post and doc browns so forgive me if this was addressed.

Keep in mind the ice we have up north, and the permafrost is sealing away Methane, adding to this fear of no return in 12 years. (Note this is not fear mongering of doomsday where the life will end, but if nothing changes, this is at the point where our climate is going to have drastic shifts that will not change back to what we see now. This can mean areas are rendered uninhabitable be it due to changes in rain, to being submerged underwater on the coast.

From my understanding, it seems it was overestimated how much effect is happening now, but what about the future? Something recent I found
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/fears-that-ancient-methane-could-add-to-warming-may-be-unfounded/3008540.article
Yeah, AOC was right but made a rookie mistake. The world can't end, so that phrase is political self-harm. But yes, if we cruise along with business as usual for another decade or so the planet as we know it will be toast a number of years later. But hey, lots of stuff likes super hot environments. So unless you're a bigot (like me) who wants mammals and humans to thrive instead of thermophile's, drill, baby, drill
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
Lol, Global Warming is definitely not a Scam.

Us as the Human Species are wrecking the planet in many ways, one of them being by deforestation (because plants actually absorb CO2 and release breathable air), but also by dumping waste irresponsibly, and of course heavy dependence on Fossil Fuels.

what I find the most Damning, is that we could do so much better on the energy front, but the Big Governments of the world have something going on with Fossil Fuel CEOs (likely a kickback or bribe to shut down alternative fuels and energy sources) that don't want us to go against using Fossil Fuels as that is making the Fossil Fuel CEOs Billions, even Tens or Hundreds of Billions of Dollars.

Any type of super efficient alternative energy sources are not being used anywhere near the scale they are and we could do much better, especially with cars than these recent Hybrids getting up to 50-60 or so MPG (given they have been making cars capable of half of that or better on just Gas decades ago).
Baby Tyrant,
You must be young (I'm jealous). Vehicles approached 50mpg 50 years ago. There's been essentially no advance in MPG in half a century. Most all of the gains have been consumed by higher horsepower.

My goal is to change that by doubling engine efficiency and halving rolling resistance and air resistance, resulting in a 200mpg large car that can run rings around a Lamborghini
 
Top