On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 1:12:49 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jim" " wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:23:57 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:18:41 -0400, benj wrote:

On 06/26/2015 01:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 26/06/2015 2:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:47 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:


**Working as a trash collector for a scientific
organisation
does not
qualify you as working in a scientific field. If you did,
then
you
would
know that humans emit vastly more CO2 than all the
planet's
volcanoes.


Owning my own company doing engineering as I do...I again
laugh
at
your claims that people produce more CO2 than do the oceans
and
the
volcanos. ROFLMAO!!!!!

**Strawman. The argument is whether volcanoes emit more CO2
than
humans.

Actually at this point..its come down to whether or not you
are
a
****ing liar.

**Well, no. The discussion revolves around the claim that
volcanoes emit
more CO2 than humans do. I proved that claim to be wrong, yet
you
continue to argue the point. That makes you an idiot and me
correct.


Which Ive proven beyond a shadow of a doubt ....you are.

**Well, no. You can continue to claim that volcanoes emit more
CO2
than
humans do, but you'll still be wrong. And stupid.

Trevor the last time you were right was during the Ice age.

Do you think that nobody will notice that you changed
"volcanoes
and
oceans" into just "volcanoes". Honesty isn't something you do,
is
it?

WTF are you talking about? Gunner tossed in "oceans," probably
because
he just found out that volcanoes emit less than 1% of the CO2
that
burning fossil fuels emits. And, as Jim points out, he got it
backwards -- a common Gunner trait -- in that oceans ABSORB
carbon
dioxide. They don't emit it.

Now, don't just clam up. Tell us where you got this "oceans"
shtick,
if not from Gunner's ignorant, failed, and off-hand attempt to
duck
out.

You denialists are unbelievable. You have no integrity at all.

--
Ed Huntress

Dissent is healthy when it supports your side but heresy when it
doesn't.

This isn't "dissent" we're seeing from the denialists here. It's
technical bombast, bluster, and willful deception.

It would be tragic if they weren't so mentally lazy, tossing out
links
to charts of "lower-troposphere temperature anomalies," with no
consideration as to what they show. But they are mentally lazy.
They
are patsies for any technical sleight-of-hand that the denialists
lay
before them.

It can be funny, but sometimes it's not.

--
Ed Huntress

You still haven't told us how you have adapted to the consequences
of
the energy deprivation you demand imposing on the rest of us.

Why is it that conservatives hate conserving so much?
Only Conservatives think that not wasting energy is
energy deprivation.

I personally don't believe in global warming,
but I also grasp why the idea of global warming
poses such a threat to conservatives. Conservatism
as a ideology cannot survive without consuming energy
and other resources at the highest and most wasteful
rate possible. Conservatism has become entirely
about defending the competitive strategy that the
greatest wealth accumulates to those who use up
resources the fastest. Anything that threatens the
right to use up resources as fast as possible will
always be opposed by conservatives.


The urban poor may have no safe place to store gasoline or run a
generator during rolling blackouts even if they can afford one.

Do you really think that anyone takes your feigned
concern for the poor seriously?

The issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should
really be of no concern. The real issue is the destruction
of carbon in the biosphere. Man has destroyed far more
carbon in the biosphere than he has added. Look at the
Middle East and N Africa. In the last 10,000 years the
presence of man in that region has destroyed more
carbon in the soil than the carbon emitted from
burning fossil fuels. Not just a little more - the deficiency
of carbon in soil today is an order of magnitude greater
than the surplus of carbon in the atmosphere.

The engineers I've worked with in the alternate energy and electric
vehicle fields were in general moderately to heavily right-wing, while
the proponents from the left were all mouth but no action,

When I was younger, I never knew that some of the places mention on this thread were "right wing" as today's search engines claim, like "the right wing" Manhattan Institute or "the right wing" Center for Strategic and International Studies... or "the right wing" Scripps Howard...

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:48 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 1:12:49 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jim" " wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:23:57 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:18:41 -0400, benj wrote:

On 06/26/2015 01:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 26/06/2015 2:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:47 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:


**Working as a trash collector for a scientific
organisation
does not
qualify you as working in a scientific field. If you did,
then
you
would
know that humans emit vastly more CO2 than all the
planet's
volcanoes.


Owning my own company doing engineering as I do...I again
laugh
at
your claims that people produce more CO2 than do the oceans
and
the
volcanos. ROFLMAO!!!!!

**Strawman. The argument is whether volcanoes emit more CO2
than
humans.

Actually at this point..its come down to whether or not you
are
a
****ing liar.

**Well, no. The discussion revolves around the claim that
volcanoes emit
more CO2 than humans do. I proved that claim to be wrong, yet
you
continue to argue the point. That makes you an idiot and me
correct.


Which Ive proven beyond a shadow of a doubt ....you are.

**Well, no. You can continue to claim that volcanoes emit more
CO2
than
humans do, but you'll still be wrong. And stupid.

Trevor the last time you were right was during the Ice age.

Do you think that nobody will notice that you changed
"volcanoes
and
oceans" into just "volcanoes". Honesty isn't something you do,
is
it?

WTF are you talking about? Gunner tossed in "oceans," probably
because
he just found out that volcanoes emit less than 1% of the CO2
that
burning fossil fuels emits. And, as Jim points out, he got it
backwards -- a common Gunner trait -- in that oceans ABSORB
carbon
dioxide. They don't emit it.

Now, don't just clam up. Tell us where you got this "oceans"
shtick,
if not from Gunner's ignorant, failed, and off-hand attempt to
duck
out.

You denialists are unbelievable. You have no integrity at all.

--
Ed Huntress

Dissent is healthy when it supports your side but heresy when it
doesn't.

This isn't "dissent" we're seeing from the denialists here. It's
technical bombast, bluster, and willful deception.

It would be tragic if they weren't so mentally lazy, tossing out
links
to charts of "lower-troposphere temperature anomalies," with no
consideration as to what they show. But they are mentally lazy.
They
are patsies for any technical sleight-of-hand that the denialists
lay
before them.

It can be funny, but sometimes it's not.

--
Ed Huntress

You still haven't told us how you have adapted to the consequences
of
the energy deprivation you demand imposing on the rest of us.

Why is it that conservatives hate conserving so much?
Only Conservatives think that not wasting energy is
energy deprivation.

I personally don't believe in global warming,
but I also grasp why the idea of global warming
poses such a threat to conservatives. Conservatism
as a ideology cannot survive without consuming energy
and other resources at the highest and most wasteful
rate possible. Conservatism has become entirely
about defending the competitive strategy that the
greatest wealth accumulates to those who use up
resources the fastest. Anything that threatens the
right to use up resources as fast as possible will
always be opposed by conservatives.


The urban poor may have no safe place to store gasoline or run a
generator during rolling blackouts even if they can afford one.

Do you really think that anyone takes your feigned
concern for the poor seriously?

The issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should
really be of no concern. The real issue is the destruction
of carbon in the biosphere. Man has destroyed far more
carbon in the biosphere than he has added. Look at the
Middle East and N Africa. In the last 10,000 years the
presence of man in that region has destroyed more
carbon in the soil than the carbon emitted from
burning fossil fuels. Not just a little more - the deficiency
of carbon in soil today is an order of magnitude greater
than the surplus of carbon in the atmosphere.

The engineers I've worked with in the alternate energy and electric
vehicle fields were in general moderately to heavily right-wing, while
the proponents from the left were all mouth but no action,

When I was younger, I never knew that some of the places mention on this thread were "right wing" as today's search engines claim, like "the right wing" Manhattan Institute or "the right wing" Center for Strategic and International Studies... or "the right wing" Scripps Howard...

Well, now you know. The highly biased think tanks, like the
conservative Manhattan Institute, were formed expressly to produce
conservative propaganda. Likewise, the Heritage Foundation. The Cato
Instutute was formed to produce libertarian propaganda.

Some think tanks are neutral, but many of them are not.

--
Ed Huntress