Heretics of Science.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
About 33% of all the methane emissions currently, that's in the 1 trillion tonnes a year neighbourhood.
Last edited:
Goodness DB. I thought you were a quack before but now you have confirmed it beyond all doubt. You actually give Von Daniklen's pseudo-archeology credibility? I usually ignore most of your posts due to their high level of fantasy, but this is a bit much. As for how the pyramids were built why don't you try reading a few books on Egyptian archeology? I can give you a list of a few titles from my library if you are interested. Just for your information during the 1970s I did an analysis on Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods. Not a single one of his invented "facts" stood up to scientific scrutiny. However, I will be happy to explain any point in that book you care to ask.
BTW your comment on global warming resembles religious dogma; a similarity that probably explains your position on that phenomenon.
Our digestive tract doesn't utilize enteric fermentation, though some humans do have some species of Archaea in their guts. Cows don't actually fart out much methane, it's largely exhaled or burped.
But he is our most beloved, and appreciated quack.........the last living Marxist, his delusions extend far beyond the realm of science... lol
But Damn he is funny.
Maybe that is how he has avoided commitment to an institution.
Everyone thinks he is kidding.
Maybe he is.......
Fire at your leisure. Egyptian archeology is a perfect subject for a quack contest. As is so often the case scientific scrutiny is raised as a firewall to the unconventional. Of course the applicants usually avoid completely that science is always subject to politics money and religion,
But.... but.... Beav, science is the new religion. Surely it is heresy to question the conventional wisdom of the new gawd.
Yeah....those pesky creationist immunoglobulins, those fascist photons, those capitalist ions. Hittin' the bong early ehh Beav? :lol:
Yeah.. good piece.. i wonder what kind of reaction he got. Heretics are often booed off the stage of forums composed of scientific conformists and bureaucrats.
Here are hard facts of carbon, natural and those of human origin, even the dolts in scientific bureacracies should be able to see the nonsense of ascribing climate change to a fractional element like carbon in the atmosphere, of which only a fraction of that is anthropogenic. They simply lack the courage to do so.
Although it appears obvious the the credulity ascribed to the political agenda of eco-nazis is on the decline, partly as a result of their complete inability to predict the the weather, and the harsh winters and cool summers we have experienced for almost a decade now.. these political agendas masquerading as science are weeds with deep roots. You seen it is so engrained in the political dialogue of the day that few politicians have the intestinal fortitude to question its orthodoxy. Even though it would take a fool to see the the AGW Emporer is wearing no clothes.
This is a list of the suspended carbon in oceans, land biomass and atmosphere. It accounts for over 40,000 billion tons, all in some form of continuous circulation.. of which a grand total of 6 billion tons can be said to be of human origins. Do the math And of course carbon itself is a fractional element of the total atmosphere, about .039%, that's 4 parts per 10,000 of other elements.
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce."
Here are hard facts of carbon, natural and those of human origin, even the dolts in scientific bureacracies should be able to see the nonsense of ascribing climate change to a fractional element like carbon in the atmosphere, of which only a fraction of that is anthropogenic. They simply lack the courage to do so.
Although it appears obvious the the credulity ascribed to the political agenda of eco-nazis is on the decline, partly as a result of their complete inability to predict the the weather, and the harsh winters and cool summers we have experienced for almost a decade now.. these political agendas masquerading as science are weeds with deep roots. You seen it is so engrained in the political dialogue of the day that few politicians have the intestinal fortitude to question its orthodoxy. Even though it would take a fool to see the the AGW Emporer is wearing no clothes.
This is a list of the suspended carbon in oceans, land biomass and atmosphere. It accounts for over 40,000 billion tons, all in some form of continuous circulation.. of which a grand total of 6 billion tons can be said to be of human origins. Do the math And of course carbon itself is a fractional element of the total atmosphere, about .039%, that's 4 parts per 10,000 of other elements.
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce."
Yeah, that's insane isn't it. Because small amounts of anything can't possibly be significant. You can't die from toxic doses as low as 0.000000001 grams per kilogram of body weight of botulinum toxin. :roll:
By the way, more than 30% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now is from human sources. Natural sinks remove only about 57% of our emissions. An accounting of our combustion of fuel sources alone would be enough to raise the total atmospheric carbon dioxide by much more than the 39% it has gone up by, without natural sinks like the ocean absorbing it, and in the process acidifying.
That's complete nonsense. You are obviously a true believer and no amount of evidence and logic will infringe on your belief system, which is accepted as a matter of faith.
Read the post to which you were responding.. the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that can be attributed to human activity, on which the psuedo scientific models of AGW are based, is far less than 1%.. in fact, it is insignificant.
But, it just goes to show you, Tonnington, that you can fool all of the the people some of the time.. and some of the people ALL of the time.. but thank God, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Last edited:
No, those are the facts. The yearly flux from human sources may be 1% of the natural flux, but you are ignorant about what that means.
Every year the oceans and land biomass absorb and emit carbon dioxide, and it's true that in one year natural sources dwarf the human emissions for that year. But what you fail to grasp is that the ocean and land biomass are a cycle. The carbon cycle works that way, there's a finite amount cycling through the system. When you take stored carbon (burning fossil fuels and land-use changes) that is not moving in and out of the sources and sinks, then you are adding carbon to the cycle.
So if you had a bath tub where 100 gallons went in every hour, and 100 gallons left every hour, then the bath tub wouldn't gain. But if you have a small tap adding one gallon an hour, now the tub gains.
So that 1% every year adds up. You haven't accounted for that. Shocker.
Anyone can look up facts on the internet...you need some context though.
Here's a good place to start:
GCP - Carbon Budget
Total carbon increase in the atmosphere is 3.4 Pg, or 3.4 Billion tons.
Emitted carbon from fossil fuels is 8.4 Pg, or 8.4 Billion tons.
The amount we emitted is larger than the increase measured in the atmosphere.
The ocean continues to acidify.
It's funny to watch people argue about different things.
You're responding to something other than what he wrote about. I'm not sure what, exactly, but if you pay attention, he's not talking about CARBON in the atmosphere, he's taking about CARBON DIOXIDE. The one is not necessarily the other.
No, i'm in fact challenging his entire mystification and complexification of the role of CARBON in the atmosphere. That is essentially the premis of AGW.
Carbon is the basis for our entire industrial economy,.. from energy to steel to agriculture. It forms compounds naturally of which C02 is only one. These also breakdown naturally. If you look at my original post both carbon and carbon dioxide are identified.
All i can see with th whole AGW scam is an attack on the life blood of the industrial economy. It is part of a deliberate eco-fascist agenda of destroying the basis on which a population of the magnitude of the world now, can be supported.
Last edited:
No, you were actually challenging the amount, and whether it could be significant. It is. The role of carbon in the atmosphere, specifically carbon dioxide and methane, is a well known and quantifiable physical mechanism. Even the crank who wrote the article doesn't ignore this fundamental piece of science.
So, because you like the outcome, you'll demonize scientific findings of it's consequences. This doesn't make you a heretic, it makes you a denier.
We should both have long ago been boiled in a large vat of dark matter over an enormous dark energy hot plate, but for the fact that the keepers of St Einsteins infernal flame are a sorry lot of posers singularly incapable of anything but endless appeals to authority.
Isn't it odd that our alleged fault is just the the same sort of inquiry demanded by the scientific method and natural curiosity and reason. Would they profit if their irrational ideas met no resistance at all?