'DANGEROUS GLOBAL COOLING'

[arkansasbob]

First, the SCIENCE of atmospheric physics establishes that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels leads to higher average global temperatures because as the level of CO2 rises in the atmosphere, so does the average global temperature.

that is a very unscientific statement. if you knew near as much about science as you put on, you would recognize that.

If I'm lucky I might make some money from new technology to capture CO2 from coal-fired power plants but it is highly speculative and is many years into the future.

if you make money off of that technology it will be directly or indirectly from the government, which means it will be coming from my pocket without my consent. i don't like that.

[DogtorEvil]

My degrees are from California State University at Long Beach and the University of Wisconsin.

Before I answer the rest why are you here on a Louisiana Tech sports message board? Why use the name "SaltyDAWG"?

[saltydawg]

that is a very unscientific statement. if you knew near as much about science as you put on, you would recognize that.


if you make money off of that technology it will be directly or indirectly from the government, which means it will be coming from my pocket without my consent. i don't like that.

Life, my dear ArkansasBob, is unfair. I FEEL YOUR PAIN.:bigcry:

[saltydawg]

Before I answer the rest why are you here on a Louisiana Tech sports message board? Why use the name "SaltyDAWG"?

I'm here because (1) I'm a fan of LA Tech football and (2) I like hanging out with fellow LA Tech fans.

Why not use the name saltydawg?

[DogtorEvil]

I'm here because (1) I'm a fan of LA Tech football and (2) I like hanging out with fellow LA Tech fans.

Yet in the 20 pages of posts in your profile, there are no posts on the football forum. They're all in the political forum.

Why not use the name saltydawg?

Because you have no relationship to Louisiana Tech other than to come to the political forum on a sports message board to espouse your agenda. At least Spinoza didn't choose a disingenuous loginID. You did.

Just curious, does the money that funded/funds your capitalism come from being an advocate for a liberal agenda?

[DogtorEvil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[saltydawg]

Yet in the 20 pages of posts in your profile, there are no posts on the football forum. They're all in the political forum.



Because you have no relationship to Louisiana Tech other than to come to the political forum on a sports message board to espouse your agenda. At least Spinoza didn't choose a disingenuous loginID. You did.

Just curious, does the money that funded/funds your capitalism come from being an advocate for a liberal agenda?

<<Yet in the 20 pages of posts in your profile, there are no posts on the football forum. They're all in the political forum.>>

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!.

I do have a relationship to LA Tech. I have contributed hard-earn money to both the sports booster group and to BB&B. I also proclaim my sincere loyalty to the Bulldawgs by wearing my LA Tech baseball cap. So there!

No. I have never been an advocate for a liberal agenda. I'm a fiscal conservative with progressive tendencies. I got my money for capitalism the old fashioned way-----I earned it. I joined the army in 1967 at age 18 because I was broke and it offered me a ticket out of town with promises of fun, travel and adventure. The pay at $75 a month was nothing to write home about.

BTW, AGW is not part of a "liberal agenda". It's part of an agenda called "reality".

[saltydawg]

I love it when a fellow dawg who is on the losing side of a discussion comes up with all these irrelevant comments.

[saltydawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...t=47657&page=3

[arkansasbob]

Life, my dear ArkansasBob, is unfair. I FEEL YOUR PAIN.:bigcry:

i don't care too much about fairness, but it is disingenuous to claim to be a capitalist when you make your money off of government intervention.

[saltydawg]

i don't care too much about fairness, but it is disingenuous to claim to be a capitalist when you make your money off of government intervention.

You mean, like the Fortune 500 companies do? The plain fact of the matter is that today the government plays a big role in many aspects of modern society. Government regulation is everywhere, so making money from government regulations is just as American as apple pie. The government says that every car has to have air-bags, so capitalists produce air-bags and make money. What's wrong with that?

[DogtorEvil]

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...t=47657&page=3

one post...about the weather in Reno

[DogtorEvil]

BTW, AGW is not part of a "liberal agenda". It's part of an agenda called "reality".

Global warming as a result of fossil fuel combustion (or climate change or whatever the next name will be) is the the current dogma of the left-wing environmentalist extremist, anti-industrial complex movement. If you don't want to call it liberal, you don't have to. Others would disagree.

Insofar as calling AGW a reality, there are many that say it is amd many that say it isn't. The main reality of it at the moment and the near future is that it is the politally "in" to support it.

As more time passes, I think the current AGW momentum will diminish. We're already seeing less pro-AGW reporting (and more anti-AGW), in my opinion it's because people are starting to do some research and believe that much of the pro-AGW dataset was marginal and the IPCC agenda was set prior to doing the study.

[DogtorEvil]

I love it when a fellow dawg who is on the losing side of a discussion comes up with all these irrelevant comments.

I don't believe you've made much headway of convincing anyone on this board to change their mindset on AGW. If anything your weak arguments and condescending attitude may have moved opinions further away from your opinion.

How is questioning your background and motives irrelevent? I find it very odd that a person with no connections to Louisiana Tech has nearly 4400 posts (3.89 posts per day) on a Louisiana Tech sports message board and over 99% of the posts are in the political forum. It's creepy. Spinoza has less than 2000 posts and posts at only 2.37 posts per day.

I also find it odd that someone whose only experience with the sciences involved in global warming/climate change is what they've garnered from reading a pro-AGW textbook and RealClimate.org. Yet you come on here and tried to portray yourselk as extremely knowledgable about these sciences.

[DogtorEvil]

Clearly, you missed the point about radioactive decay establishing the burning of fossil fuels as the source for the rise in atmospheric CO2. Other than deforestation, it is the only source for the rise. Of course you failed to offer any other explanation which is typical for AGW skeptics. What is the cause of the increase if it is not the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation? And what evidence do you have to support that conclusion? In short, your argument is just a red herring.

You're the one has missed the point. I'll type slower his time :icon_wink:.

Of course CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has to show up in testing atmospheric CO2. It's part of the overall carbon balance. But just because it's there does not mean that it is the sole source of why CO2 levels are increasing. The carbon balance models/balances are based on estimates of carbon loading. The rate at which fossil fuel CO2 is emitted is well within the +/- accuracy of these estimations.

Further, there is no definitive, absolute proof that this increase in CO2 level is causing the recent trend in global temperatures. There is a large group of scientists (with an agenda/monetary interest) that believe it does. There is a large group of scientists (with a an agenda/monetary interest), that believe it does not.

You state:"And although average global temperatures have gone up and CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, there is no direct PROOF that man-made emissions are the root cause vs. the normal temperature/CO2 cycle the Earth has experienced fo hundreds of thousands of years." First, the SCIENCE of atmospheric physics establishes that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels leads to higher average global temperatures because as the level of CO2 rises in the atmosphere, so does the average global temperature. I agree that the exact level of increase in temperature cannot be predicted but that does not change the fact that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and that increased levels of it will produce higher temperatures.

You keep saying the SCIENCE of atmospheric physics establishes that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels leads to higher average global temperatures, yet you've never proven it. Further, the SCIENCE/modeliing af atmospheric physics still has a long way to go to be a reliable predictor of atmospheric temperature prediction. I've read many papers on it.

Your last statement is once again an absolue statement and is inaccurate. Yes, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, but there's not definitive proof that increased levels of it will produce noticeably higher temperatures. I can shpow you just as many papers that say it will as will say that it won't.

As for the argument that the current rise in CO2 levels is "natural", you must be kidding. We are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels and radioactive decay establishes that CO2 released from that fuel is what is mostly driving the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. Once again you make an argument with no PROOF to support it.

The current levels of CO2 are the highest they've been in the last 50 years. Prior to fossil fuel combustion CO2 levels cycled with temperature (where temperature moved first and then CO2) (you've seen the graphs).

I asked in a previous post what CO2 emission levels you want to use for the carbon cycle balance. The "massive amounts of fossil fuels" will be within the +/- accuracy of your data.

Finally, show how radioactive decay establishes that CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion is what is mostly driving the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 levels vs. merely showing the presence of it.

We are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels and radioactive decay establishes that CO2 released from that fuel is what is mostly driving the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 levels

backing up already?