Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[darkbeaver]

Beave. Do you really think nobody had tallyed all the volcanic activity and removed from the equation?

That's exactly what I know.

 

[petros]

You know it has been discounted or that it has yet to be catalogued, inventoried and added?

 

[darkbeaver]

You know it has been discounted or that it has yet to be catalogued, inventoried and added?

I know that it hasn't been given the top marks for its contribution which is an order of magnitude greater than the human. It is patently impossible that humans could ever exceed that which is added naturally and completely outside of human control.
The human angle is important here because if it did not exist it could not become a matter of taxation and governance. There is no human CO2 problem and there never can be. We could not change the mix even if we tried very hard. Follow the money. That's my position.

 

[Avro]

I know that it hasn't been given the top marks for its contribution which is an order of magnitude greater than the human. It is patently impossible that humans could ever exceed that which is added naturally and completely outside of human control.
The human angle is important here because if it did not exist it could not become a matter of taxation and governance. There is no human CO2 problem and there never can be. We could not change the mix even if we tried very hard. Follow the money. That's my position.

Show us your proof that it was never included in the findings.

You may have to leave the basement.:lol:

 

[petros]

I know that it hasn't been given the top marks for its contribution which is an order of magnitude greater than the human. It is patently impossible that humans could ever exceed that which is added naturally and completely outside of human control.
The human angle is important here because if it did not exist it could not become a matter of taxation and governance. There is no human CO2 problem and there never can be. We could not change the mix even if we tried very hard. Follow the money. That's my position.

Global warming is a purly bull**** eugenics movement to wipe out anyone who might be entitled to benefit from their national resources.

 

[darkbeaver]

Global warming is a purly bull**** eugenics movement to wipe out anyone who might be entitled to benefit from their national resources.

What do you mean their natural national resources. The global international community is a borderless pool of cooperative transhumanism designed to maximize human potential and the inalienable inherent rights of citizens of every community on earth. Those resources must and will be used for the common good of the people of this planet. To that end the very best examples of our species who have been enlightened and thereby selected by years of selfless public service to hold triple platinum cards and have taken a leadership role (as many of us have hoped for and indeed prayed for) and have promised a new age of hope and change ( not to be confused with the thrilling American experience of the benevolent phenomena) in which our children and step children and their children and their grandchildren and our grand children and our cousins children and grandchildren will have a brave new future in a completely safe and prosperous world, going forward.
Yeah it's eugenics, the bunkers are very small. Only the important will be saved.

 

[Tonington]

Your first two sentences attest to that fact..........:lol::lol::lol:

Monetary assistance would be giving you cash to build something. A portion of the costs then would be paid for. A tax break is financial assistance. You're not being paid cash to build something, but the returns you get from the asset are taxed less, so you make more income on the investment, which makes it more feasible when you look at other competing options.

Make no mistake about it, a tax break is a subsidy. Just look at this discussion paper from Finance Canada. Canada is up near the top for subsidizing R&D costs.

 

[Tonington]

So, the temperature change is small enough that it it falls within the scope of natural and expected variation or the temp change is big enough that you'll claim that it's AGW while being small enough to defy the laws of physics?

The temperature change is small in magnitude compared to the change in partial pressure. Don't play stupid.

Temperature change from 287.15 K to 288 K, versus an atmospheric change in concentration of the gas from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. You do the math. Which one is the larger change? :roll:

 

[AnnaG]

It's pointless to discuss this.

Because you lose your point, yes, I agree:

subsidies for oil companies - Google Search

nuclear energy subsidies - Google Search

gas energy subsidies - Google Search

coal energy subsidies - Google Search

 

[AnnaG]

Too bad that you are incapable of accepting that your answer is wrong. In that respect, you are identical to Joey Porter in acting in such a childish manner... Kudos to you in that wonderful accomplishment.

Perhaps you'll see the value in consulting the CRA or maybe an accountant and get the proper answer. Better yet, if I recall correctly, you were commenting on your interest in buying a duplex but didn't have the available capital. Well, seeing how tax breaks are identical to subsidies and we know that subsidies are financial assistance, why don't you see if the banks will accept the home renovation tax break as your down payment?.. It's a subsidy, after all, right?... Go and have this discussion with your banker and let me know how it pans out.

BTW - I see that you have desperately avoided my observation that the oceans lose their capacity to absorb CO2 as their temperature rises... If you like, I can go back a few pages and quote your responses that anthropogenic CO2 was causing the oceans to acidify and was also raising the waters temps.

Too bad that your scenario is a physical impossibility, but I'm guessing that based on your conspicuous silence on the issue, you already knew that.

Too bad you can't understand that in order for the oceans NOT to absorb CO² at all they'd have to be around the boiling point. Just because they are warmer does not mean they still don't absorb CO². It isn't like a light switch thing where they either do or don't absorb it at the temps they are at. We're talking about fractions of degrees per year and the temperate zones and polar regions still have plenty of absorbtion capacity. :roll: But you go right ahead and think they aren't absorbing any. Facts don't seem to change your dogma any.

 

[AnnaG]

I already posted a definition of what a subsidy is, go back and read the definition of subsidy - or have your handler read it to you. I never imagined that there would be any difficulty in understanding the concepts behind it, but clearly, even this very simple concept is lost on some.

And it looks like you can't grasp how gov'ts aid companies without transferring cash directly to them. Poor you.
Try reading this to open your mind about business a bit:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/subsidy.html

 

[Tonington]

It's not his fault he doesn't understand what a dynamic equilibrium is. He has not been properly educated, apparently. Justin Dunning and David Kruger described this phenomenon.

A youtube user I've posted material from before has also done a good job of describing this phenomenon. He calls it the illusion of superiority:
YouTube - illusion of superiority

 

[AnnaG]

It's not his fault he doesn't understand what a dynamic equilibrium is. He has not been properly educated, apparently. Justin Dunning and David Kruger described this phenomenon.

A youtube user I've posted material from before has also done a good job of describing this phenomenon. He calls it the illusion of superiority:

Slim's not stupid. I don't mind people not being able to grasp a concept or even being ignorant of the concept, but when they are confronted time after time with the same facts and information yet seem to refuse to acknowledge them, it's a bit annoying and after a while I start to wonder if they are being purposefully leaden.

 

[Tonington]

What I posted wasn't meant to say that Slim is stupid. I've seen some stupid posts of his, and some intuitive posts. I think that he's often leaping without looking in these threads that I have been discussing with him. The video from you tube I thought is a good example, of what you describe with the refusal to acknowledge. Though that doesn't rule out being argumentative just to be contrary.

 

[Slim Chance]

The temperature change is small in magnitude compared to the change in partial pressure.

So which is it then?

You seem to pick and choose between your science depending on what's convenient.

 

[AnnaG]

What I posted wasn't meant to say that Slim is stupid. I've seen some stupid posts of his, and some intuitive posts.

lol Haven't we all said some pretty dumb things? I seem to remember you saying to someone something about leading them off a cliff. *giggles* I know I've said some pretty dense things on occasion.

I think that he's often leaping without looking in these threads that I have been discussing with him. The video from you tube I thought is a good example, of what you describe with the refusal to acknowledge. Though that doesn't rule out being argumentative just to be contrary.

Yeah. It's annoying sometimes and sometimes it can get comical. The trick is tro enjoy both occasions.

 

[Slim Chance]

The 2 of you are made for each other.

I'd just love for either of you, who come across to have this depth of knowledge that far exceeds that of the leading contemporary scientific minds of this day, to provide the answers to the world... Clearly you can't and your pride prevents you from acknowledging it.

Sad... Really sad.

See the above post Tonnington.. Earlier in this thread I asked you a few very specific questions. You've flip-flopped on your previous answers and defend your "new" position with attacks, derision and denial.

I suppose that there is truth in that old adage; there is none so blind as those that refuse to see.

 

[AnnaG]

So which is it then?

You seem to pick and choose between your science depending on what's convenient.

You don't think they can happen at the same time?

Lemme help.

Fluid mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AnnaG]

The 2 of you are made for each other.

I'd just love for either of you, who come across to have this depth of knowledge that far exceeds that of the leading contemporary scientific minds of this day, to provide the answers to the world... Clearly you can't and your pride prevents you from acknowledging it.

Sad... Really sad.

See the above post Tonnington.. Earlier in this thread I asked you a few very specific questions. You've flip-flopped on your previous answers and defend your "new" position with attacks, derision and denial.

I suppose that there is truth in that old adage; there is none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Funny how you tend to come up with posts like this rather than address posts like the ones where I provided the means to get correcting information for you.

 

[Tonington]

So which is it then?

I just told you...what is your problem anyways? For the purposes of gas solubility, the temperature change is insignificant compared to the change in partial pressure. Hence the ocean acidifies.

Did you do the math? A change in temperature by 0.29% versus a change in atmospheric concentration of 39%. That is orders of magnitude larger. Considering both factors are directly proportional to the solubility...well even you should be able to understand that...

I imagine you're trying to twist what I said about temperature change being small to imply that the climate effects will have only small impacts. That's not what I said, and it's logically absurd.