Skeptics are a "tiny right wing fring group"

Duh, more CO2? NO!

Heard of oceanic acidification? Aragonite shell fish are already in real trouble. When the oceans get too acidic, oyster larvae crash. When corals, eggs, little fish, and oysters all fail, there goes the food chain.

When the tipping points to runaway warming all get passed, there goes human habitat. We will have too much heat, but when the ice fails, we will have too much water, or not enough, in all kinds of places.

We need to get nice to trees, right now, and grow hemp, algae, and switchgrass, to beat the band, with whatever genetically engineered crops, needed to re-green deserts and polluted areas.

Or we lose more human habitat. The longer we wait, the more we lose. Got cheap food? Not for long!

CO2 is healthier, between 180 ppm and 280 ppm, but somebody got out the Stihls and chopped, while burning anything which will burn, particularly wood, coal, and oil.

So let's NOT release more sequestered CO2, like a load of freaks, into tricking and shooting speed, at the bath-house. The bath-houses are CLOSED. Get a clue, what can happen, to unrelieved human habitat.

 

I know its a different environment but i used to plant 15,000 trees a day for a tree farming operation.

With a "dibbler" (hand planting) we would get a thousand a day per man. Take three steps...plant a tree...take three more steps...plant another tree.

There were three steps between men.

"Just gimme three steps gimme three steps mister"....oops wrong song!

 

In post #96 in this thread:

"NO dams will hold the amount of water we have seen here in recent years"

In post #72 in this thread I responded to this question:

"How do you prepare for extreme heat, drought in some areas with flooding in other areas?"

Thusly:

"That's an easy one: large-scale hydrological projects."

Filling the Lake Eyre Basin (which is much bigger than Lake Eyre) with salt (i.e., sea) water is not a project to relieve local droughts or flooding in other areas.

Thinking too small. Australians should be thinking in terms of not allowing any significant amount of fresh water to reach the ocean. Use ALL of it.

"Nothing" would have contained them? Again, you are thinking too small. The Pacific Ocean seems to have contained them pretty much without blinking. So could a really large-scale hydrological system. Australia is by far the driest inhabited continent, so if you want more fresh water, you need to be thinking in terms of more ambitious hydrological projects than other countries, and being prepared to see dams with little or no water behind them much of the time. Does Australia have anything like the Colorado River projects? The Aswan High Dam? The Three Gorges project? The SNWD project?

<yawn> I'm Canadian.

Increased evaporation --> increased precipitation downwind. It's inescapable.

 

YES!

Let's start from your 1st sentence/question.
Yes, I've heard of oceanic acidification and as well as a number of other posters I've pointed to total illiteracy of scientists in basic terms and definitions of chemistry. PF has a feature which will lead you to the points made by me and other posters. Use it and make your objections if any.

Briefing: the point was made and proven that using term acidification in application to PH of oceans is a demonstration of illiteracy of scientists in terms and definitions of chemistry.

 

So you think chopping down huge portions of forest and destroying massive amounts of land to mine energy is helping nature?

While the media is also an obvious factor to this, your point is utterly ridiculous. Clearly you either know nothing, are trolling or are not interested in the actual science.

 

Of course scientists are ignorant when it comes to science.

Thats why they call them scientists.....geesh.

sarcasm on!

I am amazed every day at the way scientist figure things out. Some of them are down right brilliant.

 

Forests are not fossil fuels -- although a sustainable biomass energy industry based on forests is certainly possible, I don't see anyone here advocating unsustainable deforestation for energy. Indeed, we should be promoting substitution of fossil fuels for unsustainable use of wood fuel in cooking, heating, etc. in poor countries that are rapidly deforesting themselves.

You can change land, but destroying it is pretty hard. It even recovered pretty quickly from the last Ice Age.

In a sense: it's redressing a tiny part of half a billion years of unsustainable biological carbon sequestration. If you look at how atmospheric CO2 has declined over the last 50My or so, it's pretty clear nature didn't have many million years to go before lack of CO2 was going to make plant growth virtually cease, and with it the animal ecosystems. The great majority of the biologically sequestered carbon is in the form of carbonate rock like limestone that isn't an energy source, so it's not like we could ever get back to the kind of high-CO2 conditions prevailing when the coal and oil were being formed.

 

You misunderstood. I was talking about forests being destroyed to get at the fossil fuels beneath them.

So destroying habitat to mine the land beneath to extract huge amounts of natural resources is not destructive?

So you think destroying forests to mine the land beneath to extract fossil fuel, burn it and send it into our atmosphere is a good thing for nature? Also, could you provide some links?

 

That's a microscopic fraction of the forests being destroyed to get at the wood in them.

It's "destructive" but not a significant problem, like landslides.

Yes.

Sure:

http://www.google.com/

http://www.youtube.com/

Do you need more?

 

Okay - for the refusal to do any actual research to back up anything you are averring you go back on my DBR list - don't bother reading

 

? It was just established I wasn't talking about destroying forests to 'get at the wood' but to get at whatever is beneath them.

Yes but landslides are a natural thing that cannot be helped unlike what I am referring to.

There you have it, folks. Destroying forests to mine massive amounts of land to extract our fuel and burn it is a good thing for nature

No links = epic fail.

 

And I identified the fact that the amount is inconsequential.

So? If landslides aren't a problem, why are equivalent mining operations a problem?

Yep. And your point would be....?

Lie. You asked for links, I gave links. I can't help it if you had no idea what you were asking for links TO.

 

I accept this, but as it was already established that I wasn't talking about forests being fossil fuels it didn't make sense for you to say "That's a microscopic fraction of the forests being destroyed to get at the wood in them" as you repeated the same mistake... So no, you didn't identify that fact at all.

Where did I say landslides weren't a problem? Again you totally missed my point and funnily enough you already said "It's "destructive" but not a significant problem, like landslides" which is confusing as you then went on to say "If landslides aren't a problem, why are equivalent mining operations a problem?" ...Please be consistent. Do you think they are equivalent or not? If so, your own logic would mean you think mining operations are a "significant problem". If not, you are either confused or just plain confusing.

I actually didn't have a point. That was the funny thing. Your words said it all.

Oh please, don't be petty. Your links absolutely sucked. If that is all you could provide then I can't possibly take your comment seriously.

 

Skeptics are a corporate-fueled (Hearland Corp., etc.) group of seditious conspirators, who proliferate, since geeks, like Al Gore sell AGW media, which isn't concise enough, but Al Gore never supported cutting the carbon footprint of government, in any way, he never supported legal hemp OR marijuana, despite US oil production peaking, in 1970, and Al once finked out a H.S. football team-mate, for smoking, before a game.

Skeptics continue, since it is on Democrats, to remove the drug war, which they created, under Wilson and FDR, despite the unconstitutionality of their Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, in 1972, whereupon Nixon created the DEA and Nixon and Reagan named and popularized the drug "war," which funds 25% of the world's prisoners, directly, by 5% of the world's population, which must also fund all sorts of police and military and petroleum interests, around the world, under a variable interest scam, so US and world banks can profiteer.

Skeptics are SEDITIOUS GEEKS, who are similar to flat-earth freaks, but also, skeptics are like the bath-house patrons, of the 1970s and 80s, who tricked and shot speed, while shoving their lethal doses of HIV, all the way into a deadly AIDS epidemic.

The Earth is a sphere, and the bath-houses are closed.

When the three-letter agencies get tired of Heartland-fools attacking their budgets, they will get as rough, with skeptic fools, as they are, with OWS. Anti-AGW skepticism will fade.

Benedict says skeptics are atheists, or something like that. Nice try, B.

Skeptics are all over forums and message boards. Many are moderators. They are always trying, to rant their way, to the moon. But it is hard, to find good links, to reports and studies, so they keep coming up with Anthony Watt, assorted geeks, including those that post blogs, under their first name, only, and with leaps, of illogic, to arrive at some idiotic skeptic-conclusion.

Have a pretzl. Skeptics won't go away, until climate change gets us right to Mass Extinction Event 6, which it will, thanks to Democrats and Republicans enjoying their positions, as professional masturbators.

 

No, YOU repeated the same mistake.

Yes, I most certainly did.

How could they be? They've been happening naturally for billions of years with no ill effect on nature or the climate.

I am.

Yes.

I'm not sure how you could read, "not a significant problem" as "a significant problem." Neither landslides nor removal of surface forest for coal mining is a significant problem. Is that clearer?

True.

Your arbitrary demand for "links" absolutely sucked.

If you can't respond to an argument based on obvious and well-known facts without whinging about "links," then I'm happy not to have any response from you wasting my time.

 

I know, dudes.

The Earth is TOO a sphere, and the bath-houses are closed, so grow up.

BTW, Benedict says skeptics are atheists, and the Spanish ended their Inquisition, in the 80s, so don't ask.

 

Mate, you sound like an angry child. I just showed how you repeated the same mistake. Now either show where I did or ****.

*sigh*....No, you didn't because you explicitly said "That's a microscopic fraction of the forests being destroyed to get at the wood in them" which was confusing/off the mark as I had already established I wasn't talking about destroying forests to "get at the wood in them" but to get at what is beneath them, which your statement didn't address. Now if you made a mistake typing out your response, why not just correct yourself instead of starting up this farcical dance?

Then why did you say "It's "destructive" but not a significant problem, like landslides."? Stop changing your position.

And yet again you demonstrated that you are not as you first said landslides were a 'significant problem' and are now saying 'how could they be' a problem. This is ridiculous.

Yes, but you explicitly said "It's "destructive" but not a significant problem, like landslides." which clearly states that mining is 'destructive' but not a significant problem, like landslides, which clearly means you think landslides are a significant problem. Now you have completely changed your mind and are saying landslides are not a problem. Tell me, do you speak english? Do you think before you type or do you just pound your keyboard in a fit of emotion?

Why? Because you didn't actually have any links thus leading you to embarrassment?

BS. What I requested links for are not 'obvious and well-known facts'. Stop trying to weasel your way out of this. Either put up or shut up.

 

No, you didn't.

In post #138, where you said, "it didn't make sense for you to say "That's a microscopic fraction of the forests being destroyed to get at the wood in them."

It did address it. It identified the fact that as the effect was derisory, it was not worth discussing.

I made no mistake... except thinking that you were worth responding to.

I haven't changed my position. You just can't read or understand plain English. I direct your attention to the position of the comma.

Your inability to understand grammatical English is indeed ridiculous. If I had meant that landslides were a significant problem, I would have place the comma after, "destructive," rather than "problem," thus:

"It's destructive, but not a significant problem like landslides."

No. See above.

I never said they were a significant problem (at least not in terms of their impact on climate or the environment).

I am a professional writer and editor. You all too obviously are not.

No, because you had no idea what you were even asking for links to.

That's all I stated.

Please identify which statement of fact that I made was not either an obvious and well-known fact or an obvious implication of a previously identified obvious and well-known fact.

 

You explicitly said "That's a microscopic fraction of the forests being destroyed to get at the wood in them" when it was already established that I wasn't talking about destroying forests to "get at the wood in them" but to get at the fuel beneath them, so yes, of course you made the same mistake. If you didn't mean that then you should've said 'sorry, I meant to get at the fuel beneath them, not at the wood in them'

You mention post #138 but you aren't following this conversation well at all. In post 132 you said "Forests are not fossil fuels.." to which I responded in post 133 "You misunderstood. I was talking about forests being destroyed to get at the fossil fuels beneath them." to which you responded with the same mistake of believing I was talking about forests being used as fuel "That's a microscopic fraction of the forests being destroyed to get at the wood in them." in post 134.

So in fact I was right in post 138. Why are you so dishonest? I even conceded your point that there probably isn't a large amount of forests being destroyed for that reason (fuel beneath, not for wood in them), although there certainly is some....And I still find it stupid you think removing forests to produce fossil fuels is good for nature (unless you are a proper denialist who thinks AGW is one big hoax). Even if it's effect is negligible clearly this should not be a desirable thing. It might be good for the Earth in the long-term (assuming you are correct on the post you provided no links for) but there would likely be consequences for us.

So now we have established that you did make a mistake It's not even a big deal. An adult would simply accept it was a mistake and get over it. You don't need to be right 100% of the time.

My bad. I got confused because I didn't think it was necessary to make a comparison. I apologize.

No, I am not, but I do find it amusing that you are.

Of course I did. I even quoted it for you. I figured because you knew so much on the topic you would easily be able to help me out and provide links. Instead you linked me to google and youtube. A patronizing sentiment for a reasonable request which speaks volumes about your character.

Specifically I would like links for this part as I could not find anything myself.

"it's redressing a tiny part of half a billion years of unsustainable biological carbon sequestration. If you look at how atmospheric CO2 has declined over the last 50My or so, it's pretty clear nature didn't have many million years to go before lack of CO2 was going to make plant growth virtually cease, and with it the animal ecosystems."

 

The earth is not a sphere and the universe does not exist in a perfect symmetrical balance.

I leave it to you to see how that relates to your view towards climate change.

 

I wonder whom are you talking to. I guess to the same people who in your mind are against planting trees. It is always a wonder how minds of believers are disconnected from reality.

Did anybody say that scientists are ignorant when it comes to science?

Did anybody claim that he/she is not amazed every day at the way scientist figure things out?

I see so many posting their amazement and amuzement at scientists and I am one of such posters.


Scientists are such an amazement and entertainment. Who does argue that?

What reality do you live in?

 

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. ~Richard Feynman

 

What a wonderful, apposite quote. Thank you.

 

Great quote! Something for all those people who rely on blogs instead of understanding the science and looking at the evidence and observations to remember.

I hope you re-post that quote when a denier tells us of the 20,000 scientists that signed the Oregon Petition.
I hope you re-post that quote when a denier links us to 50 NASA scientsist and astronauts that do not accept AGW.
I hope you re-post that quote when a denier explains to us that "the father of AGW" changed his mind.
I hope you re-post that quote when a denier mentions the resignation of a physicist from the APS.

For those demanding "proof', Dr. Feynman also stated:
"We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. "

 

And warmists shut up deniers and announce that AWG is settled science.

Only scientists care about observation and evidence.

Feyman did not care about observations and evidence. He was physicist. He would laugh at scientists caring about observations and evidence