Free Energy is just a bad name...

[mtdoc]

Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!

Oh geez, not that old nut again. Any quick google search will show you that he is not a climate scientist and has a well documented political agenda. His nonsense has been debunked many times over.

George Carlin making fun of climate change trolls

Carlin was a great man and a great comic who agreed that humans were making the planet unlivable but that ultimately the earth would " shake us off like a bad case of fleas". He was not, BTW, a climate scientist.

Climate change ideas based on snakeoil science, windmill people, free energy, leftist , the fossil fuel industry and nuclear with Rottschilds and  other climate change trolls with a dedicated agenda!

please provide the extraordinary evidence for this claim.

1. CO2 is good for plants - well duh...  Red Herring
News flash - CO2 levels during the Jurassic and Cretaceous peiods were very high and the earth was covered in green - and it was warm.
And guess what - there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew.

If you are going to troll you have to do better than that!

The reason dinosaurs during Jurassic,  Mesozoic Era become so large was of ca:2-2,5% higher oxygen levels not CO2 levels.

Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet. The reasons for that have to do with the dependence of maintainable internal body temperature on surface area to body mass ratio. Mammalian physiology places strict limits on allowable internal body temperature. Any engineer should be able to appreciate that the ratio of surface area to total heat generating mass as it relates to ambient temperature has an impact on heat dissipation.

[Simon]

There may have been more oxygen, you have just proved your ignorance, I never talked about oxygen, I talked about CO2, why don't you look up the composition of air. Most of it is inert gas! CO2 is such a small amount that a small increase percentage wise in total air volume is a large increase of CO2.

I was not commenting you Simon so you have shown and proved your arrogance and ignorance because this is a troll thread not a definitive science!
Why dont you watch the videos and chill out a bit!

I know, but my statement stands. So what if there was more oxygen in the air ? oxygen is not the oposite of CO2 and does not cure global warming. The actual content of CO2 even in "climate change" air is quite low percentage wise, it does not take much percentage wise to make a difference.. Why don't you explain instead of call me arrogant ?

[MT]

I know, but my statement stands. So what if there was more oxygen in the air ? oxygen is not the oposite of CO2 and does not cure global warming. The actual content of CO2 even in "climate change" air is quite low percentage wise, it does not take much percentage wise to make a difference.. Why don't you explain instead of call me arrogant ?

Why dont you provide facts from scientists who's research are not paid by climate changers before accusing people for being ignorant in a troll thread? 

[Simon]

I know, but my statement stands. So what if there was more oxygen in the air ? oxygen is not the oposite of CO2 and does not cure global warming. The actual content of CO2 even in "climate change" air is quite low percentage wise, it does not take much percentage wise to make a difference.. Why don't you explain instead of call me arrogant ?

Why dont you provide facts from scientists who's research are not paid by climate changers before accusing people for being ignorant in a troll thread?

So now you accusing me of presenting evidence from a source that is biased because it is paid for by some non descript entity you call "climate changers" when all I did was state my opinion. Do you actually have an opinion you have formed yourself or do you just put out false information from false references that were no doubt put there in the interests of those who feel they would loose from us adopting a better way of life.

I mean hell, would it not be terrible for us to create a better way of living either way ? if the end result is a better lifestyle that should be promoted regardless, you are saying that we should not live better just because there is no death threatening reason to do so. What you are saying is that we should use the worse tools possible regardless unless impending doom is obvious ?

You still have no looked at what air is made of have you ? I bet you think it is just oxygen and CO2.....

[Mechanical Menace]

Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!

I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.

[mtdoc]

Why dont you provide facts from scientists who's research are not paid by climate changers before accusing people for being ignorant in a troll thread?

WTF is a "climate changer"

There are those who accept the scientific consensus about climate change and those who deny that it exists.  Just as there are those who accept or deny any scientific theory or consensus.

As far as providing facts from scientists, anyone who is honeslty interested (which you clearly are not) can easily find a plethora of them:

HERE's a place to start.

Too much work for you? Ok. Have a look HERE or maybe HERE.

[MT]

So now you accusing me...... 

You seams to enjoy the role of a provocateur for fun to cause small storms in tea cups because as i already said which you arrogantly ignored
i didnt comment on your statement, you have to turn to dannyf whom you have your initial argument with!

I can debate Brexit and immigration flooding caused by Putin with you if you like!

[mtdoc]

Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!

I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.

Ha Ha!  Yes, but that would imply he is unbiased..

FWIW Ivar Gliaver is employed by the Heartland Institute  - which is a tobacco and fossil fuel industry funded "think tank" which  conducts well known insustry funded campaigns to spread disinformation about the health effects of tobacco and about global warming.

He is not a climate scientist and the points he trys to make in that video have been thoroughly debunked

[IanB]

Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet. The reasons for that have to do with the dependence of maintainable internal body temperature on surface area to body mass ratio. Mammalian physiology places strict limits on allowable internal body temperature. Any engineer should be able to appreciate that the ratio of surface area to total heat generating mass as it relates to ambient temperature has an impact on heat dissipation.

But correlation is not causation. There are other possible explanations for small mammals. Mammals were new on the scene, and perhaps large mammals had not evolved by that time. Since there were already other large animals in the ecology there may have been competitive pressure against mammals growing larger to occupy an already populated space. Furthermore, I believe there is no clear conclusion about whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or not (birds are descended from dinosaurs and are warm blooded). If large, warm blooded reptiles might have existed, why not mammals?

I think your argument as presented is not enough to make a convincing case.

[MT]

Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!

I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.

Not mine just referring to someone who thinks so. The whole climate change consensus/denial seams to be argumentum ad verecundiam just
as engineers believe in creation and Wignors friend is God etc as this universe is a creation of god or are god or a computer whatever.

[mtdoc]

Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet. The reasons for that have to do with the dependence of maintainable internal body temperature on surface area to body mass ratio. Mammalian physiology places strict limits on allowable internal body temperature. Any engineer should be able to appreciate that the ratio of surface area to total heat generating mass as it relates to ambient temperature has an impact on heat dissipation.

But correlation is not causation. There are other possible explanations for small mammals. Mammals were new on the scene, and perhaps large mammals had not evolved by that time. Since there were already other large animals in the ecology there may have been competitive pressure against mammals growing larger to occupy an already populated space. Furthermore, I believe there is no clear conclusion about whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or not (birds are descended from dinosaurs and are warm blooded). If large, warm blooded reptiles might have existed, why not mammals?

I think your argument as presented is not enough to make a convincing case.

Oh - no doubt there may have been additional reasons there were no large mammals present then. That was not my point. My point is that the size and shape of mammals as they currently exist is limited in part by their need to maintain a relatively constant body temperature across the temperature range of their environment. It's more complicated that just being "warm blooded" or not.

It is certainly possible that if the earth had remained as warm as it was during those periods, larger mammals would have evolved that could thrive in that environment.  If the planet slowly heats up to the same temperature again over millions of years - evolution would no doubt result in animals and ecosystems adapted to that environment.

Of course the issue with AGW is the rate of change. Evolution occurs over a very long time frame.  Any engineer can appreciate that it is not the absolute level of some physical parameter that is always the most important but it may be the rate of change that is critical.

[Simon]

So now you accusing me...... 

You seams to enjoy the role of a provocateur for no fun to cause small storms in tea cups because as i already said which you
arrogantly ignore i didnt comment on your statement, you have to turn to dannyf whom you have your initial argument with!

I can debate Brexit and immigration flooding caused by Putin with you if you like!

Oh so only the person you aimed the comment at or responded to is entitled to reply to you ? i suggest you PM them and resolve it that way. We are having an open debate and anyone is entitled to reply to anyone's point. I am not DannyF, I have not presented someone elses polarized argument with no evidence and defended it to the ridiculous, I have put forward an opinion that I have formulated while you just regurgitate someone elses opinion. If you can't reply to the points made that is fine, it's better to admit you don't know (most of all to yourself) than try and pretend you know all. The most opposition to the suggestion that our climate is changing and that we may have a hand in it usually usually comes from people who do not know much about it but have been fed some convincing and convenient rubbish that they can repeat and feel they are experts.

Our weather monitoring and reporting has been stating that the jet stream usually at 100mph is now going at 230mph, is it overshooting the UK and taking warm air to the north pole that is now estimated to be not at -25 on the surface but at 0 which is where ice melts, but i suppose all of the weather observation stations in the world are conspiring and lying to us.

Air line companies are already looking at the impact of jet streams and how much faster or slower it will make their planes and how much more fuel they will have to burn to fly into a faster wind, I suppose they are just colluding to rip us off.

[zapta]

Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!

I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.

Good point. The fact that Obama is a Nobel laureate means nothing in this context.

;-)

Edit: Obama has very strong opinion about the scientific aspects of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming. Don't expect descent from NASA, NOAA and other organizations that report to him.

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/

[mtdoc]

Edit: Obama has very strong opinion about the scientific aspects of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming. Don't expect descent from NASA, NOAA and other organizations that report to him.

Nonsense. They had the same positions under the Bush-Cheney adminsitrration.    Besides, NASA and NOAA do not "report" to Obama.  Their funding is by congress. NASA's
oversight is done by The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness.  Currently with a Republican majority and chaired by none other than Ted Cruz.

Both your premise and your conclusion is demonstrably false and  bringing Obama into this discussion just makes your political agenda clear.

If you have some evidence to support your claim that career NASA and NOAA scientists (who are both Republican and Democrat) have withheld or changed findings due to intervention of the president please present it.

[MT]

Oh so only the person you aimed the comment at or responded to is entitled to reply to you?

Yeeeeeeeeeeees offcourse but playing dumb while run around and provoke is kinda lame really Simon!
But seams you believe people shall be forced to engage in anything you post, interesting approach!

it's better to admit you don't know (most of all to yourself) than try and pretend you know all.

Im not pretending anything its your leftist brain who imaginary troll itself to believe so, but i guarantee it's just an illusion you have! Besides pretending "know-it-all" is a leftist trademark, so whatever accusations you throw into peoples faces have a tendency to bounce back. Trying to provoke answers from anyone you disagrees with is kind of ugly...
Future of homosapiens!

[zapta]

..Besides, NASA and NOAA do not "report" to Obama.

You must be kidding

... bringing Obama into this discussion just makes your political agenda clear.

Read the thread again. Somebody else brought Obama here.

We are trying to have an honest discussion and you keep coming with personal accusations, name calling, political dogma and half truth.

[MT]

WTF is a "climate changer"

You claimed to be a trained physiologist yet dont even know what a climate changer are. Yet constantly throughout this thread claims that yo know!!   Ever heard of air conditioner?

There are those who accept the scientific consensus about climate change and those who deny that it exists.
Just as there are those who accept or deny any scientific theory or consensus.

Like those who believe in God and Devil while ignoring shades of gray?

As far as providing facts from scientists, anyone who is honeslty interested (which you clearly are not) can easily find a plethora of them.
not a climate scientist and has a well documented political agenda...
He was not, BTW, a climate scientist....

Your constantly referring to "climate scientists" while making snarky comments about my and other peoples persona which says a lot about your persona but these climate scientists are they the same one's who wrote a letter to your president Obama asking to use RICO to prosecute anyone who ""they find"" to be climate change deniers?... like the...."inquisition"...back in the ol' days...

I'm just baffled you support such "climate science" acts!

http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

Just random googling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf

argumentum ad verecundiam and ad litteram ad hominem dumbdumb ignorum climatum subscribum et riddiculum.

Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs
to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet.

I'm a evolution biologist and thinks ahead while you seams to be outright illiterate! My point was YOU cant make predictions for the outcome of biological evolutionary systems else you are a creationists. What you can say are evolution my take this or that direction but the outcome may be utterly surprising. So if evolution had taken a different direction very possible varm blooded larger mammals could have emerged a lot earlier.... or not at all.... or just slightly larger. Im not talking about eventual molecular level predicting which requires an understanding of mutational effects that govern complex relationship between genotype and phenotype.

Here is an interesting evolutionary idea about other life forms for your little brain to contemplate over!

Just the notion that a tad or two less of gravity with current warmth and CO2/oxygen levels could enable for giants way larger then biggest dinosaur
to emerge, all according to your climate scientists.

It has been a belief among the academia for along time that clones suffers or will suffer from genetic degeneration!
Well surprise ants are more vital then anything else.

You blabber like illiterate lunatic while throwing tantrums suffering from the Streisand effect, what if oil people are paying climate change believers?
http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

What about Islam? Islam claims to have  12% of verses in the Koran dealing with the ecology and care for the planet.
andclaims to be a ""green religion"" and as such suggest a “a religious duty to fight climate change.” Will Daesh promote that?

While Christians who eat pigs and fart methane belongs to a bad religion? Surely Hindus dont have to worry since they dont eat cow to much,
well some do but prefer  beans who also gives of gases! Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming when they fart and
suggest everyone start eat insects!

[zapta]

While Christians who eat pigs and fart methane belongs to a bad religion? Surely Hindus dont have to worry since they dont eat cow to much,
well some do but prefer  beans who also gives of gases! Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming when they fart and
suggest everyone start eat insects!

You nailed it!

[mtdoc]

[
You must be kidding

Zapta, your longstanding tradition of trying to make everything fit your political agenda is shameless.

Now you bring a video where a Nasa administrator talks about Obama wanting to encourage outreach to Muslims as somehow proof that NASA and NOAA scientists answer to Obama?

You continue to have a problem dealing with facts. Here's a few:

1) NASA and NOAA are non partisan government agencies staffed by thousands of scientists - both Democrats and Republicans (no doubt many Obama haters).
2) Their funding is controlled by congress (currently controlled by Republicans)
3) NASA's oversight is by Congress  not the executive branch.
4) Regardless of oversight or current adminsitrator - their scientists are career employees who do not change with each administration change.
5) Claiming that NASA and NOAA scientists are controlled by Obama is pure, unadulterated political slander with no basis in fact.  Such things are only claimed by shameless politicos like yourself.

Personally I find it remarkable that a few of them haven't taken Heartland Institute bribe money and made some public statements to encourage the deniers - as this has already happened in a few cases.

And of course none of that is even matters since

1) Literally thousands of scientist from across the globe working over the course of decades now have proven that - AGW is real.
2) Every major scientific organization (even those headed by republicans) have stated that AGW is real.

It's interesting that the pattern of posting here by you and MT is identical to the pattern shown by this threads OP -Free Energy and gallbladder cleanse nut:  Ignore the factual data presented - do not respond to the calls for supporting facts but instead rely on youtube videos and cut and past from various pseudoscience websites.

[mtdoc]

Just random googling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/

Do you realize that Anthony Watts who runs the wattsupwiththat website is an employee of the Heartland Institute and is not a scientist.? His nonsense has been debunked many times over by the actual scientific facts.

I'm a evolution biologist and thinks ahead while you seams to be outright illiterate!

Clearly! 

My point was YOU cant make predictions for the outcome of biological evolutionary systems else you are a creationists.

Funny - nothing you said has anything to do with that point - you brought up something about Dinosaurs being large because of oxygen levels which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had posted.

What you can say are evolution my take this or that direction but the outcome may be utterly surprising. So if evolution had taken a different direction very possible varm blooded larger mammals could have emerged a lot earlier.... or not at all.... or just slightly larger. Im not talking about eventual molecular level predicting which requires an understanding of mutational effects that govern complex relationship between genotype and phenotype.

Relevance? Nothing to disagree with (though sort of nonsensical)  just not relevant to the topic at hand.

It has been a belief among the academia for along time that clones suffers or will suffer from genetic degeneration!
Well surprise ants are more vital then anything else.

Relevance?

You blabber like illiterate lunatic while throwing tantrums suffering from the Streisand effect, what if oil people are paying climate change believers?
http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

What about Islam? Islam claims to have  12% of verses in the Koran dealing with the ecology and care for the planet.
andclaims to be a ""green religion"" and as such suggest a “a religious duty to fight climate change.” Will Daesh promote that?

While Christians who eat pigs and fart methane belongs to a bad religion? Surely Hindus dont have to worry since they dont eat cow to much,
well some do but prefer  beans who also gives of gases! Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming when they fart and
suggest everyone start eat insects!

Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda.  Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. What the hell does that have to do with the scientific facts supporting climate change?

Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started.    Have at it guys..

[dannyf]

Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming

That cannot be true. All climate change believers believe in man-made climate changes. So cows couldn't have caused global warming.

Unless climate change believers think themselves as cows?

Maybe that's the reason that those climate change believers advocate that we don't eat cows?

[Zero999]

Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming

That cannot be true. All climate change believers believe in man-made climate changes. So cows couldn't have caused global warming.

Unless climate change believers think themselves as cows?

Maybe that's the reason that those climate change believers advocate that we don't eat cows?

Cattle are quite likely contributing to climate change. It's not natural for them to be intensively farmed.

[zapta]

1) NASA and NOAA are non partisan government agencies staffed by thousands of scientists - both Democrats and

Yes, thousands of scientists and none is descending the government line until they leave NASA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

Personally I find it remarkable that a few of them haven't taken Heartland Institute bribe money and made some public statements to encourage the deniers - as this has already happened in a few cases.

There is much more money and influence on the alarmist side, mostly from government grants and positions.

It's interesting that the pattern of posting here by you and MT is identical to the pattern shown by this threads OP -Free Energy and gallbladder cleanse nut:  Ignore the factual data presented - do not respond to the calls for supporting facts but instead rely on youtube videos and cut and past from various pseudoscience websites.

You said that NASA doesn't report to Obama, I shown you a video where the NASA administrator admit that he gets his missions, not all scientific, from Obama and you discount it as 'a youtube video'. 

Throwing 'science', 'trolls', 'old nut', 'nonsense' 'pseudoscience', 'ideologs', 'debunked' and all the other labels is meaningless. The fact of the matter is that the predictions of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are failing. This is the main point of this entire CO2 debate.

One day it will occur even to you, the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions are grossly exaggerated. When this will happen, remember this thread.

As for some crazy stuff that goes in this thread, I take it as a harmless comic relief.

[timb]

Hey. I've got an idea... What if you were all to take a chill pill? Maybe wash it down with a nice mug of Shut the Fuck Up? Seriously. You're all acting like little babies; dannyf, mtdoc, MT, Simon, Zapta, et al. Do you need your diapers changed? No? Then grow up and act like adults.

Guess what, people hold differing opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. As much as you would like to say climate change is purely a scientific issue, it's not. It's very much political as well. For better or worse, politics always brings out strong emotions, especially on the Internet. Clearly nobody is changing anyone else's mind here.

If you still feel like dragging this out, Frankie Goes to Hollywood has some advice: Relax, don't do it. _{When you want to suck it, do it. Relax, when you want to come!}

[dannyf]

Cattle are quite likely contributing to climate change.

That's just clearly wrong, according to this article published in Science: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/19/467206769/why-science-teachers-are-struggling-with-climate-change

BTW, it is the same NPR program that I referenced earlier. and it has a lot of gems in it,