CO2 and Deforestation: Back of the envelope calculation.

.... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. PRICELES!... ahahaha...

Mike Varney "Marvin the Martian" wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
snip crap

Varney wrote:
That's the problem with upgrades.
You loose the old killfile with new
software versions.

hanson wrote:
ahahahaaha... There they argue from the depths of
their souls and tormenting their own minds about
existential threats and critical issue to humankind....

... and rolling & trolling along comes Marvin-Varney
who worries about the condition of his killfile....

ROTFLMAO & thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On 7/7/2012 9:56 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:44 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
The first part makes the stupid assumption that all the rise in CO2 MUST
be from humans and that only the extra CO2 produced by humans goes into
the ocean. They ignore that there are natural sources out there produce
MUCH more, and they ignore ocean chemistry and the equilibrium between
ocean and atmosphere wrt CO2.

You gotta admit, Marvin, that the increase in CO2 correlates with
the industrial revolution. Let's look a bit more closely are some
of the arguments.

Actually, "Sam", you gotta admit that the increase in CO2 correlates
quite well with deforestation rather than being completely the result of
fossil fuels. (The original subject of this thread!) So WHY are you so
hot to argue that CO2 is ONLY due to fossil fuel burning and not to
deforestation? Is there something POLITICAL that makes one "science"
important and the other to be ignored?

Correlation does not equal causality!


Snip usual bunch of professional "science" AGW propaganda

On 7/7/2012 9:25 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:50:25 -0400,
wrote:
On 7/6/2012 2:02 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

Get psychiatric help.

As usual, Snider enters the debate with a clear understanding of all the
scientific issues involved and brilliantly adds his intellectual insight
to the question.

It would be nice to think of that as an indication that you're
finally beginning to get in touch with reality, but more likely
you imagine that you're being sarcastic.

Bill, I'm simply flabbergasted that you are so out of touch with reality
that you actually thing that saying "Get psychiatric help." is
"brilliant intellectual insight" to science? And that I finally realized
what a genius you are? Oh my God you are a sad little man!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:40:46 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

On 7/7/2012 9:56 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:44 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
The first part makes the stupid assumption that all the rise in CO2
MUST be from humans and that only the extra CO2 produced by humans
goes into the ocean. They ignore that there are natural sources out
there produce MUCH more, and they ignore ocean chemistry and the
equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere wrt CO2.

You gotta admit, Marvin, that the increase in CO2 correlates with the
industrial revolution. Let's look a bit more closely are some of the
arguments.

Actually, "Sam", you gotta admit that the increase in CO2 correlates
quite well with deforestation rather than being completely the result of
fossil fuels. (The original subject of this thread!) So WHY are you so
hot to argue that CO2 is ONLY due to fossil fuel burning and not to
deforestation? Is there something POLITICAL that makes one "science"
important and the other to be ignored?

Correlation does not equal causality!


Snip usual bunch of professional "science" AGW propaganda

Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
stupid political website. Almost all his post is their idiot drivel of a
quote with just a few smug-assed quips of his own.

I've complete contempt for Wormley. He contributes nothing and his
understanding is very, very limited.

On 7/7/12 10:53 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
stupid political website.

It is interesting, Marvin, that almost every claim you make
is listed as a climate myth at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now I would think that you would be asking yourself why that is!


About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what *peer reviewed science*
has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of
global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to
focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader
picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full
weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating
on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating
glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realize the planet
as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader
picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be
political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to
spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the
cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely
the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what
is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical
Science *removes the politics from the debate* by concentrating solely
on the science.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:50:52 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 7/7/2012 9:25 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:50:25 -0400,
wrote:
On 7/6/2012 2:02 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

Get psychiatric help.

As usual, Snider enters the debate with a clear understanding of all the
scientific issues involved and brilliantly adds his intellectual insight
to the question.

It would be nice to think of that as an indication that you're
finally beginning to get in touch with reality, but more likely
you imagine that you're being sarcastic.

Bill, I'm simply flabbergasted that you are so out of touch with reality
that you actually thing that saying "Get psychiatric help." is
"brilliant intellectual insight" to science? And that I finally realized
what a genius you are? Oh my God you are a sad little man!

There is no science in this poor retard's delusions, ****-bot, any
more than there is in your lies.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On 7/7/2012 12:03 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/7/12 10:53 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
stupid political website.

It is interesting, Marvin, that almost every claim you make
is listed as a climate myth at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now I would think that you would be asking yourself why that is!

Sam, that would be because "skepticalscience" is professional warmist
propaganda outfit, with a physicist (but not climate scientist) hired to
carefully "spin" all science to bolster the "warmist" CO2 theory. The
site obviously has HUGE AGW funding. Just look at all the languages it's
translated into! Look at the technical expertise put into "spinning" the
scientific data! You think this is some blogger in a basement? Hardly!
It's major hardball heavy funded last ditch effort to mislead a gullible
WORLD into a one world government feudal state.

Buyer beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:46:11 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

On 7/7/2012 12:03 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/7/12 10:53 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
stupid political website.

It is interesting, Marvin, that almost every claim you make is listed
as a climate myth at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now I would think that you would be asking yourself why that is!

Sam, that would be because "skepticalscience" is professional warmist
propaganda outfit, with a physicist (but not climate scientist) hired to
carefully "spin" all science to bolster the "warmist" CO2 theory. The
site obviously has HUGE AGW funding. Just look at all the languages it's
translated into! Look at the technical expertise put into "spinning" the
scientific data! You think this is some blogger in a basement? Hardly!
It's major hardball heavy funded last ditch effort to mislead a gullible
WORLD into a one world government feudal state.

Buyer beware!

I don't know about that.

Every page of that stupid website has some big lie or stupid deception
that discredits the veracity of the entire website.
They also often gibber... fill up the page with stuff that isn't in
dispute and then conclude, without basis, that man made CO2 is causing
global warming.

This website is a slap in the face of rational thought. It is an insult
to all honest scientist.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:46:11 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

On 7/7/2012 12:03 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/7/12 10:53 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
stupid political website.

It is interesting, Marvin, that almost every claim you make is listed
as a climate myth at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now I would think that you would be asking yourself why that is!

Sam, that would be because "skepticalscience" is professional warmist
propaganda outfit, with a physicist (but not climate scientist) hired to
carefully "spin" all science to bolster the "warmist" CO2 theory. The
site obviously has HUGE AGW funding. Just look at all the languages it's
translated into! Look at the technical expertise put into "spinning" the
scientific data! You think this is some blogger in a basement? Hardly!
It's major hardball heavy funded last ditch effort to mislead a gullible
WORLD into a one world government feudal state.

Buyer beware!

I also get tired of debunking the website and wormley doesn't even
address the issues I raise.. Then he goes ahead and pastes the same
goddamned webpage again.

Wormley isn't here to discuss, he's here to propagandize.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:40:46 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:
Actually, "Sam", you gotta admit that the increase in CO2
correlates
quite well with deforestation rather than being completely the
result of
fossil fuels. (The original subject of this thread!) So WHY are you
so
hot to argue that CO2 is ONLY due to fossil fuel burning and not to
deforestation?

Don't lie, he isn't claiming that. Of course deforestrations also
helps to raise the CO2 levels. Planting new trees on a large enough
scale is therefore one way to bring down the CO2 levels.
Deforestration can be reversed by planting new woods, it only takes a
century or so. Burning fossil fuel is much harder to reverse and
takes much longer, tens or hundreds of millions of years.


Correlation does not equal causality!

True, but causality implies correlation.