Confessions of a Climate Change Denier

Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
captain morgan said:
I guess that you're just a sh*tty communicator.
Click to expand...
Communication is a two-way thing you realize. I could call you a ****ty listener, but that would be like brothers calling their mother ugly, and I find these kinds of conversations boring and tedious. But I guess I already said you have comprehension problems :p

Let me ask then a yes/no question:

Is the advent of anthropogenic global warming a function, in any way, of the number of 'emitters' in the equation?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Now let me ask you, a simple binary response question.

If the entire world's population emitted greenhouse gases at the same rate as Luxembourg's population, would the yearly emissions be higher, or lower?

In case it's still not clear, the only thing you said which I am disagreeing with is that one multiplier is weighted more than the other. It's not. You have to multiply one by the other, I thought the two scenarios were pretty clear what was changing...

If you have excel, or a sheet of paper, you can do a simple calculation yourself. All you need to start is the global population, the global rate of emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global population growth rate. Run the model for your baseline, say ten years. Change the growth rate. Reset, change the emission rate. Compare.
 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Tonington said:
Yes.

Now let me ask you, a simple binary response question.

If the entire world's population emitted greenhouse gases at the same rate as Luxembourg's population, would the yearly emissions be higher, or lower?

In case it's still not clear, the only thing you said which I am disagreeing with is that one multiplier is weighted more than the other. It's not. You have to multiply one by the other, I thought the two scenarios were pretty clear what was changing...

If you have excel you can do a simple calculation yourself. All you need to start is the global population, the global rate of emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global population growth rate. Run the model for your baseline, say ten years. Change the growth rate. Reset, change the emission rate. Compare.
Click to expand...

The point that I initially brought up was that if one of the elements in the equation related to the number of emitters, and the pop demonstrates a net increase year over year, it is only a function of time before some critical level is reached.

Apply the min, med and max efficiency or emission scenarios, but the only thing that will change is the time frame in which the critical level is reached (assuming that pop growth remains in positive territory). There is a minimum emission rate for any person that converts O2 to CO2 by simple respiration... Apply that number if you wish, I believe that the inevitable pop increase will reach it's critical level eventually and then we see if the AGW/CC theory holds water.

At the above, theoretical point, what then is the solution to this equation?
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
captain morgan said:
There is a minimum emission rate for any person that converts O2 to CO2 by simple respiration... Apply that number if you wish, I believe that the inevitable pop increase will reach it's critical level eventually and then we see if the AGW/CC theory holds water.

At the above, theoretical point, what then is the solution to this equation?
Click to expand...

oh my! And here I thought human-breathing associates to the natural carbon-cycle and isn't factored into atmospheric levels. Quick, someone better update world governments and how they're improperly calculating emission inventories!
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Cannuck said:
Because I believe in scientific principles. Why are you here?
Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO twice.

waldo said:
oh my! And here I thought human-breathing associates to the natural carbon-cycle and isn't factored into atmospheric levels. Quick, someone better update world governments and how they're improperly calculating emission inventories!
Click to expand...

Well cow farts have been included by some so why not human breathing? Surely CO produced by human breathing qualifies as anthro.

darkbeaver said:
GHG is a joke.
Click to expand...

True but many loggers have kept employed killing forests to produce all the paper the reports are written on. Which I find kind of ironic.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Cannuck said:
Yes, I'm not surprised (given your religious views regarding medicine) that you find the concept of scientific principles amusing.
Click to expand...

I find you amusing when I'm bored. I bet you get a flu shot just because the someone in a white smock told you it is good for you. Even though he gets a commish for peddling it.
Your version of medicine is to create lifetime customers for Big Pharma while mine is to cure the problem.
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
taxslave said:
I find you amusing when I'm bored. I bet you get a flu shot just because the someone in a white smock told you it is good for you. Even though he gets a commish for peddling it.
Your version of medicine is to create lifetime customers for Big Pharma while mine is to cure the problem.
Click to expand...

The guy in the white smock has a mountain of scientific evidence to back up his claim. You don't. In fact, you haven't even tried to back up your religion with anything even remotely scientific. As I've said, I don't really care what religion you are but trying say the earth is the centre of the universe when the science CLEARLY says it isn't, makes people look a little silly.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,301
8,446
113
Washington DC
captain morgan said:
No lie... Surely you don't believe that your interpretation of a professional's recommendation is the only interpretation possible?
Click to expand...

The specific language is "Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum." That's not an interpretation, that's a quote. Here are the adverts:

1981 Trident Spearmint Gum Commercial with Peggy Fleming - YouTube

Stock Footage - TRIDENT SUGARLESS GUM. '4 OUT OF 5 DENTIST' (COMMERCIAL) - YouTube

1985 Trident Sugarless Gum Commercial 4 - YouTube

Your statement, also a quote, that "3 outta 4 dentists that recommended trident gum as a proper way to take care of your teeth" is a lot more than an "interpretation."
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,727
12,941
113
Low Earth Orbit
By the sounds of things I should peel out all the fiberglass insulation in my walls and fill them with CO2.

Tecumsehsbones said:
The specific language is "Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum." That's not an interpretation, that's a quote. Here are the adverts:

1981 Trident Spearmint Gum Commercial with Peggy Fleming - YouTube

Stock Footage - TRIDENT SUGARLESS GUM. '4 OUT OF 5 DENTIST' (COMMERCIAL) - YouTube

1985 Trident Sugarless Gum Commercial 4 - YouTube

Your statement, also a quote, that "3 outta 4 dentists that recommended trident gum as a proper way to take care of your teeth" is a lot more than an "interpretation."
Click to expand...
Trident = 3 teeth.
 
gopher

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
captain morgan said:
Interesting... There is a publication that has been vastly more accurate than all of the combined models and research by the IPCC

Click to expand...







Farmer's Almanac has always been of my favorite reads. Fun and good old fashion entertainment.

I also like Yankee, Reminisce, Grit, and Good Old Days.





..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom