T1B

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:12 pm**

It's a "law" because it invariably happens in your observable world.

(In m2's world, maybe not)

Any explanation of why it happens is a theory.

Actually, gravity is a force...

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:57 pm**

Just wondering...how do you account for the sudden exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that happens to coincide perfectly with the sudden explosion of fossil fuel use? Coincidence? Volcanos?

And while CO2 may not be the greatest contributor to the greenhous effect, the rest of the consituents are essentially at equilibrium, with maybe seasonal or more longer term variations but basically stable over the long term. CO2 is the one constuent that's increasing, and at an accelerating rate.

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:08 pm**

88 wrote:I think most AGW skeptics believe in the Greenhouse Gas theory. They just don't believe that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are a significant driver of climate change. Like me, they believe that other forces are substantially more significant by comparison: e.g., solar variations and natural cyclic variations in climate.

James Hansen and his crowd project catastrophic end games unless all of humankind does exactly what they tell us to do. That sounds more like the Catholic Church than science to me.

I have no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I fully believe that greenhouse gases are responsible, in large part, to regulating our climate. But I see the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere for what it is, which is almost nothing compared to "natural" emissions. Furthermore, I recognize that carbon dioxide is not a particularly important greenhouse gas, at least when compared to other such as water vapor, for example. And, I recognize that significant variation in the Earth's climate is natural. So blow me if I cannot see any justification for crippling the current population on Earth because there might be, possibly, a wee bit, of a chance, maybe that some dork 200 years from now might not have to wear a sweater to the football game on Saturday.

So who gave you all of that to repeat?

Beck or Limbaugh?

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:26 am**

Mikey wrote:Just wondering...how do you account for the sudden exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that happens to coincide perfectly with the sudden explosion of fossil fuel use? Coincidence? Volcanos?

Dude, I was with you, when they first brought up this "crisis." Then, I put aside all the rhetoric, and harkened back to... junior high chemistry class. CO2 dissoves quire redily in water, and becomes Trapped Under Ice. If something (like the Sun... you know, that thing that's caused the icecaps on Mars to melt at a similar rate to Earth's?) cause a slight warming of the Earth, the warmer H2O can hold less CO2 in solution.

Wahhhhllllaaaa... pretty fucking easy to account for it.

And gee -- with the rapidly advancing technology of sun flares/radiation/cycles, the atmospheric changes fall right in line with what we've learned of the Evil Ball Of Melonoma.

And the solar radiation guys actually ancourage peer-review of their work... how bout that, and don't ask for a dime in global-tax, either. I believe that meets the definition of "science."

Anyone still on board the global-warming train is a rube.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:29 pm**

Mikey wrote:exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations

BTW -- I don't think "exponential" means what you think it means. Unless you care to come up with an exponent that increases the base number by less than at least itself?

Members of the Climate Change Religion (because it dosen't hold up to any reasonable definition of "science," but meets the definition of "religion" to a tee) are some scary fuckers -- every (false) statement is always put into alarmist wording, and it's always lie after lie -- like this "exponential" thing.

150 years ago, CO2 made up about 0.03% of the atmospere. Today, after this "exponential" increase, it's can be generously rounded up to 0.04%...

yup, this is what passes for "exponential" in the Cult of Global Taxation.

Mikey -- care to explain why the icecaps on Mars shrank at about the same time the Earth's did? Or why there's more sea ice now than at any point since they figured out how to measure it back in 1977?

Take your time.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:44 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Mikey wrote:exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations

BTW -- I don't think "exponential" means what you think it means. Unless you care to come up with an exponent that increases the base number by less than at least itself?

Members of the Climate Change Religion (because it dosen't hold up to any reasonable definition of "science," but meets the definition of "religion" to a tee) are some scary fuckers -- every (false) statement is always put into alarmist wording, and it's always lie after lie -- like this "exponential" thing.

150 years ago, CO2 made up about 0.03% of the atmospere. Today, after this "exponential" increase, it's can be generously rounded up to 0.04%...

yup, this is what passes for "exponential" in the Cult of Global Taxation.

Not sure where you learned your math, or what you think "exponential" means, but you might want to go back and check on this.

You're looking pretty damn stupid right about now.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:46 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
care to explain why the icecaps on Mars shrank at about the same time the Earth's did?

Solar Forcing. What do I win?

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:51 pm**

The I guess "most people" have no idea what an exponential function implies. I really hate to lump Dinsdale in with "most people"...but there you have it.

With an exponent of 1.035, assuming that value is maintained, you'll have a doubling of the original value in 20 years. in 100 years the value has increased by a factor of 31.2. Not exactly trivial.

From Dins' brilliant post he seems to think that you just put an exponent on whatever your base value is, and wonders how you can go from .03 only to .04 because .04 is less than twice .03 ( :doh: ). What makes his "analysis" exponentially brilliant is that if you put any positive exponent on .03 you're going to get a value that's LESS than .03.

Brilliant. Absofuckinglutely brilliant.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:59 pm**

88 wrote:If you are talking about the "exponential" growth of atmospheric CO2 since 1960, the exponent is 1.035 (315 to the 1.035th power is 385).

Now that I've read your post, I guess you don't really know how it works, either.

An exponential function takes the form:

y = a * b^x

where a is your baseline, or initial value, b is the growth factor and x is the exponent. The exponent will depend on the time increments you use. In your case you've used a single time increment of 49 years or so, where normally one would use one year. You've just taken one increment and calculated the value of the increase, not accounting for any intital value.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:13 pm**

Mikey wrote:
y = a * b^x

where a is your baseline, or initial value, b is the growth factor and x is the exponent. The exponent will depend on the time increments you use. In your case you've used a single time increment of 49 years or so, where normally one would use one year. You've just taken one increment and calculated the value of the increase, not accounting for any intital value.

A+

say, you're pretty sharp with numbers...ever thought about real estate? :D

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:14 pm**

Is this something else we can blame on white people? TIA

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:26 pm**

Mikey wrote:It's a "law" because it invariably happens in your observable world.

(In m2's world, maybe not)

Any explanation of why it happens is a theory.

Actually, gravity is a force...

right that's sort of the progression. nothing is a law until it is proven. until then it's just a simple theory, which is open to scrutiny, which the GW greenies don't want any part of.....

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:30 pm**

Mikey wrote:The I guess "most people" have no idea what an exponential function implies. I really hate to lump Dinsdale in with "most people"...but there you have it.

With an exponent of 1.035, assuming that value is maintained, you'll have a doubling of the original value in 20 years. in 100 years the value has increased by a factor of 31.2. Not exactly trivial.

From Dins' brilliant post he seems to think that you just put an exponent on whatever your base value is, and wonders how you can go from .03 only to .04 because .04 is less than twice .03 ( :doh: ). What makes his "analysis" exponentially brilliant is that if you put any positive exponent on .03 you're going to get a value that's LESS than .03.

Brilliant. Absofuckinglutely brilliant.

you're extrapolating on something which you have incomplete data on. woefully incomplete.....

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:32 pm**

I'm not extrapolating anything. I just used 88s values as an example.

In fact, 1.035 is much too large of an exponent if you assume 1 year increments. He went straight from 1960 to 2009 in one step.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:29 pm**

88 wrote:
Is this an exponential decline?

Depends on the time increment you use.

It might be logarithmic.
If you need help with that, just ask Dins.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:32 pm**

Mikey wrote:
88 wrote:
Is this an exponential decline?

Depends on the time increment you use.

It might be logarithmic.
If you need help with that, just ask Dins.

That's lager that Din's helps with...

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:34 pm**

88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:06 pm**

Mikey wrote:
88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:55 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:
88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

mvscum? What the fuck are you? 9?

You need a remedial hygiene class, because apparently you were busy sucking cock in the locker room that day.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:59 pm**

Katy wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.
mvscum? What the fuck are you? 9?

1+1 still doesn't equal you knowing what the fuck any of us are talking about..

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:00 am**

I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

Sue me, cunt.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:23 am**

Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:24 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

A bit better than it is for you from what I can tell...

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:25 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

Extremely well. How are 90% of your posts working out for you?

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:48 am**

Katy wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

Extremely well. How are 90% of your posts working out for you?

Excellent. For the 5% here who don't have their head up their ass.

All the names still sworn to secrecy of course.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:06 am**

I'm sure that 5% have the best personalities, too. :doh:

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:19 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:
88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Going down this road with you would definitely be a waste of time and bandwidth.

Carry on with your self-buttfucking in the mouf, though. It's almost funny.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:50 am**

Mikey wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.
Going down this road with you would definitely be a waste of time and bandwidth.

Agreed.

On the other hand...

The graph of y = ex is upward-sloping, and increases faster as x increases.

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

Go Fuck Yourself, Dipshit.

And take mvscusm's simpleton ass with you.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:36 pm**

That's wonderful. Congratulations on finding such a nice picture.

Your point?

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:08 pm**

Mikey wrote:The I guess "most people" have no idea what an exponential function implies. I really hate to lump Dinsdale in with "most people"...but there you have it.

With an exponent of 1.035, assuming that value is maintained, you'll have a doubling of the original value in 20 years. in 100 years the value has increased by a factor of 31.2. Not exactly trivial.

Actually correct. Sorry to lump you in with mvscum. But this...

...Is not an exponential curve. Closer to linear.

And not exactly reason to totally shut down an economy already on life support.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:31 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Actually correct. Sorry to lump you in with mvscum. But this...

...Is not an exponential curve. Closer to linear.

Wrong again. You may want to join Dinsdale on the sidelines for this one. This is obviously way over your head.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:45 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Actually correct. Sorry to lump you in with mvscum. But this...

...Is not an exponential curve. Closer to linear.

Wrong again.

You usually are.

Even taking your own conjectures as fact, it would take 20 years to double the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again, not exactly a compelling reason for the socialist swine who scuttled Social Security (a much more urgent threat) reform to do the same to the economy.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:46 pm**

Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

You people are too stupid to understand Global War..... I mean Climate Change. But believe me, its happening, so send me your money.

go fuck yourself.

Merry Xmas.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:11 pm**

Sirfindafold wrote:Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

SYHTFOTW

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:50 pm**

Felix wrote:
Sirfindafold wrote:Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

Wrong again.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:35 pm**

Diogenes wrote: [
Wrong again.

look, I was going to let that link slide the first time it was posted, but given that you opted to pull this out once again, lets talk about it...

the first signature on the list is some dude that has a PHD in physics...how does that make him an expert in climatological science....as for the rest of that report, they state that of the 31,486 people that signed it, 9,029 are PHD's....the qualifications of the "scientists" associated with it are so vague, we really have no idea exactly how many of "scientists" that signed the petition know what the fuck they're talking about insofar as climatological science is concerned....holding a PHD in physics doesn't make anyone as expert in climate science

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:42 pm**

You know what warms the globe more that anything else?
Santa after draining six or seven PBR's. Ooooof! Light a match!

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:27 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:
88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Why on earth are you calling out for Avi/Jessup? Are you kidding? Do you actually believe he's anything but a total seething hack? A wind-up parrot of Rusp Limpdick? Are you really so bereft of commonsense and erudition that you'd defer to a pathetic joke?

Papa Willie wrote:
Felix wrote:
Sirfindafold wrote:Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

SYHTFOTW

But Al Gore has become (probably by now) a fucking billionaire off of this shit. THAT is the problem.

Absolute bullshit, and of course you've got nothing upon which to base this whole silly attack.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:53 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Absolute bullshit, and of course you've got nothing upon which to base this whole silly attack.

Everyone knows that Al made his fortune inventing the internet.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:31 pm**

88, the article clearly supports Gore, you knucklehead. Did you really read it? He invests in healthy technology and donates millions for the same. What the fuck is wrong with people like you to attack someone who is trying to help? Who the fuck are you supporting? Inhofe?

How about this scientist?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/jes ... ate-change

T1B

More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud

Re: More Global Warming Fraud