Ross Craney
New Member
A shame a bit more effort wasn't put into spelling
I took Physics, Chemistry and higer Mathenatics in college. I read scinetific journals and books all the time. I don't consider scientists beyond reproach, rather I am familiar with the science behind the issues and I have a good idea what I'm talking about. In contrast to your assertion that i never questions the work of other, I've questioned your work and tcmtech's work, and now both are whining about my language, which is perfectly appropriate for this discussion. Ya' just can have it both ways.
A shame a bit more effort wasn't put into spelling
Just as I thought; as one fanatical denyer demands proof, another passes his opinion off as fact and refuses to provide any evidence as demanded of those who support the science. Typical of the know-nothings. If you can't show the rudimentary details of your analysis, then your whole statement is meaningless. Yes I am an adult and I used Google to find that the instrumentation used to measure the trace gases in the atmosphere are accurate enough to measure CO2 well out of the noise floor, but thanks for your absurd suggestion anyway. This is how science is done, wether is chemistry, physics or whatever, numerical analysis is important, bullshitting, opining and obfuscation are not important. No matter how many times you write an opinion, it's still only an opinion, and will not pass for facts, which is the misnomer you repeatedly assign to it. I have studied chemistry and physics at the university level, so you're wrong again to suggest our side doesn't understand these disciplines of science. Your willingness to speculate and write things you have no idea about as though they are fact that can be proven is not only typical of the arguments made by your side, but also indicitive of how willing you are to substiture ******** for truth.
So, you think the administrators will ban me because of my stance and stated opinions and allow you to call names like "Eco-nuts?" and that's going to be OK? As I said, you're wasting time and space pretending to be the site moderator and say who should be banned and who shouldn't. If my opinions and statements are so far off-base and out of bounds, then why am I getting good reputation for this thread? Evidently, you believe anyone who doesn't swallow your assertions should be banned. From what you're written, it sounds like you've already whined to the moderators about me. Wasamatter? Did I offend your fragile sensibilities?
There you go how about that? People get banned for swearing on this site from time to time. Now you can't edit it out and say you did not use the bold print words. Thats what I am getting at.
The part I dont understand is that since you came on today you have been after pretty much everybody for any reasons you can possibly find, even punctuation!
However I wont let you ram your ideas and beliefs down my throat and tell me its the right thing. I simply dont agree with you, thats it, nothing else. I dont agree with your belief system. From my point of view its seriously closed minded and fatally flawed.
BTW, I do wonder why there is any need to edit posts 6½ hours after posting. I wonder what it originally said.
Mike.
As for your calls for moderation, you come on here like someone who enjoys a robust debate, but you're the first one to call for someone's banning for the slightest infraction of what you consider to be the rules. I've made many posts and written hundreds of sentances, and you want the moderators to review me for a couple off color words. Hmmmmm??? And you need to reporoduce them in bold? Why would that be OK, if the language was so bad in the first place? And why on Earth do you think it's your responsibility to make sure I can't edit my posts? If what I wrote was so offensive, then editing would have been a good thing.
PS: Since my language so offended you, I went back and edited them from my post. Now, the offensive language exists only in your own post. Feel better?
And why on Earth do you think it's your responsibility to make sure I can't edit my posts?
If anything your probably reminding them more as to why they need to look ,read, think and learn for themselves and not listen to the fanatics and word twisting bully's who so profoundly proclaim they are right and every body else is so wrong. Thanks to your efforts here there is a fair possibility that the non believers just gained some more backing! Thanks!
So did the Catholic church in 1632.Well, if I had to be a judge I would say the climate change questioners won by a country mile.
How do you define air? There is CO2 in air.So how is it all this heavier than air CO2 manages to get to the upper atmoshere ?
So did the Catholic church in 1632
The only reason I put them in bold was so you would see exactly what words are frowned upon here. I said nothing in regards to any other names or words you have posted.
The only reason I put them in bold was so you would see exactly what words are frowned upon here. I said nothing in regards to any other names or words you have posted.
I think it was clear that I was only attempting to correct your wording politely. Generalized name calling is allowable to a degree and we both know that. Open profanity is not. Had you politely said oops my mistake, I will correct it and thanks for the heads up, I would have taken it out of mine as well.
No one is trying to win you over and no one here likely has been given all that much more credibility towards global climatic events because of you.
If anything your probably reminding them more as to why they need to look ,read, think and learn for themselves and not listen to the fanatics and word twisting bully's who so profoundly proclaim they are right and every body else is so wrong. Thanks to your efforts here there is a fair possibility that the non believers just gained some more backing! Thanks!
How do you define air? There is CO2 in air.
Man-Made CO2 Can’t Cause Global Warming; It Doesn’t Have the Mojo
North Star Writer’s Group | Candace Talmadge | Jan. 16, 2009
Despite all scare-mongering to the contrary, carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is not the cause of global warming.
To be an agent of greenhouse heating, carbon dioxide (or any) atmospheric gas would have to be capable of absorbing in significant quantities both the sun’s radiation spectrum (the ultimate source of natural heating on Earth) and of absorbing heat radiating back from the Earth (the greenhouse effect).
There is a process to measure a gas’s absorption ability called atomic absorption spectrometry. Suspicious of the entire global warming hysteria, atmospheric physicist James A. Peden put carbon dioxide through just such an analysis. Based on where and how much of the sun’s total radiation output, which consists of light and other wavelengths not visible to human eyes, Peden estimates that carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere takes in no more than 8 percent of the sun’s total radiation.
It’s the same percentage for heat radiated back from Earth. “Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat passing upward through the atmosphere,” Peden writes. “And, if all the available heat in the atmosphere is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit.”
Holy cow! Hard scientific analysis finds carbon dioxide not guilty as charged because this gas simply does not have the molecular mojo to play the role of atmospheric heater. The real culprit is water vapor, which Peden estimates is responsible for 95 percent of all greenhouse heating in the atmosphere.
In politics, citing carbon dioxide, whether from natural or human-made sources, for causing global warming is the equivalent of blaming the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Peden is hardly the only skeptical scientist. In December 2007, 100 scientists signed an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. That letter had some harsh words about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, saying that its conclusions about carbon dioxide’s role in climate change are “quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”
I also found this recent artical as well.
Did i miss a post? This doesn't even make proper sense.Baloney. I've made solid, verifiable arguments and now you have those words bolded hoping your call for banning will be answered. The reason you have't said anything about any other words is becuase out of the hundres or thousands words I've writtin on this thread, you can't find any other's to gripe about. You're being a plain jack-*** by putting this up there, and you know it.
Well first of all, you're clearly no longer in the real debate, only whining and complaining about a couple words and you're clearly sore that I am capable of making a argument for science, and so you have the need to get me banned for that. You're worse than a little girl. Waaaaa! Ban the bad man! You come across as a tough guy, but your just another bawl-bag who needs the moderators to fight your fights for you. Actually, general name calling is against the rules, not to mentnion they add nothing of value to a technical debate, rather just noise that obscures that fact that you have nothing to add, other than purile outbursts that do nothing to prove your case. But congratulations for turning the debate from things you know nothing about to something you can go on and on and on about, although you say nothing
Hardly, more than likely you're whining and wanting me banned will convince people that those who don't know what their talking about need to mute those who do. You show the heavy handed methods of information suppression, and I think everyone knows that. And BTW, other's have made some accurate observations about you way before I ever said anything, Mr. Dos Equies, the most interesting man in the world!
You have been pursuing me and bad mouthing me for the majority of the thread that you have been here?
Do I need to start quoting you again so as to prevent you from back tracking and editing your comments towards me? (Never mind I already did.)
Perhaps you need to take a good nights sleep and re read this in the morning. Your getting very far off topic and rather flat out rude. And your spelling, grammar, and choices of wording are starting to suggest that your stressed out and possibly tired. Just a guess though
Its quite a hole your digging!
Consider the source.
North Star Writers Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hopefully we have the time.So even if the questioners are wrong its going to take how many years to find out?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?