Wrath of Dagon

No, you'd be driving a forklift instead of playing games. I mean pushing a forklift.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming. OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat. Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon. Ok, reality lesson. Your reason has nothing to do with how stuff works in reality. It's reasonable to assume the earth is flat. It's reasonable to assume the sun is a giant lamp hanging above flat earth. It's reasonable to assume that time is separate from matter. I could go on. Also forget about Kilimanjaro, it's not proof of anything else except that it's a natural phenomenon. I brought up Kilimanjaro because it was being discussed here, and has been used extensively as evidence of global warming, most notably by Al Gore in his famous movie "A Convenient Lie". As far as those other things, yes it was reasonable to assume them, and people believed it for thousands of years, until it was proved false. That is why I said until proven otherwise. I was not making an argument other than that a claim has to be proven, but apparently you fail both in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming. OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat. Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon.

I'd say 1), although that doesn't preclude us doing things which make sense anyway, like building nuclear power plants or wind turbines for that matter. Also we should all move underwater.

Here's some more on temp record "adjustments": http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/ Hard to believe they'd be that blatant, but who knows.

Here's an interesting article on "clean coal": http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...171.html?page=1 I especially like this statement:

You can be both a ranger and an assassin? I thought you had to choose one.

Yes, I was thinking ranger makes the most sense for an archer, but without knowing what you get it's hard to tell.

Is taking duelist useful for an archer?

i'd like to see the math you used to base your assumption. Where's the assumption? Edit: You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

this is totally non relevant. what does it matter how much of the atmosphere is CO2 if it will warm the climate up? you're not denying that an increase in CO2 will raise the average temperature in earths atmosphere are you? lol best thing you've posted so far. here's an article in a language i dont understand proving my point! classic stuff. edit: alright you ninja edited. anyway i dont think anyone was claiming otherwise. I didn't ninja edit, I still had my post open, and didn't see yours. And yes, I am denying that increasing CO2 by such a tiny amount is proven to cause global warming. By contrast, atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO2.

Yes, well we just had snow at the earliest recorded date ever in the South, and we only get snow once every few years. That must prove the earth is cooling. If this chart from the American Thinker article I linked earlier is correct, then whatever warming we're seeing is simply a natural consequence of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also people saying just increasing CO2 must be causing global warming have to realize CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere, while water vapor, a more important green house gas, is 1% of the atmosphere. Edit: Here's a new study which supposedly says the melting of Kilimanjaro is not due to global warming. Of course I can't read Dutch, so I don't know if that's true. http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/12/0...of-kilimanjaro/ Edit: Used google translate, and it does say that. Funny that a government site would be attacking Al Gore though.

The Russians are the third largest emitter in the world, the treaty won't do much good if they don't sign it, not that it would do much good regardless. I also thanked him for getting us involved in an obvious scam to steal our money.

The Russian are demanding that their credits are extended to get the new treaty signed, so they can sell the credits to us. Obama wants to get the new treaty signed, that is his stated goal. You're right to the extent he hasn't signed anything yet, and unlikely to sign under those conditions if he wants to be reelected, so I admit I thanked him prematurely, but it was a figure of speech.

Isn't making an agreement with the world to rip us off Obama's idea? Who do you think sent our delegation to Copenhagen?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Russian-Clai...251869.html?x=0 This has to be the most retarded idea ever conceived. I guaranty Americans are thrilled to send money to Russia, thanks Obama.

No, I've never said anything idiotic, only an idiot would think that. As far as me being richer, if it wasn't true Kikkeli would've denied it, so I was right. Anyway, he's the one who called me "poor", I didn't say anything about him to start with.

Maybe it's the way myself and others constantly attack him which makes him harsh and defensive? I'm probably one of the least harsh people on this forum, for instance I never insult people first unlike the unprovoked insult you just quoted. I do defend myself when attacked, which is constant, so it's no wonder if I look defensive. As far as smug, talk about pot calling the kettle black.

I think that's the prize. What does an elder sign look like?

No, but the Vatican represents all Catholics. Edit: The quote in my sig is from Iranian protesters, so no, they don't all fall in lockstep.

There's actually nothing I disagree with in your statement except I'm not poor and in fact a lot richer than you are, and I never claimed climate change doesn't exist at all. Obviously cllimate changes all the time, and I already said so, and the issue is how much if any is due to humans and if so what can we reasonably do about it. Edit: Btw, what that documentary says is exactly what the article I linked says, if anyone had actually bothered to read it before going into automatic attack mode.

OK, I'll look at it again, I heard him say something like that, but nothing that would refute the article. Mostly he was saying "trick" can mean other things, but the article presents evidence for what it actually meant in this context. At what time in the video are you referring to?

From what I saw, it's just propaganda without any data to back it up, admittedly I didn't bother to watch the entire 9 minutes. The article I posted goes into a very detailed explanation and presents actual evidence, if you want to argue against it you need to post an article which discredits what my link says.

The "trick" explained some more (it's bigger than it appears): http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/und...egates_hid.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-the-world.html Reminds me of a Monty Python episode, "The Larch"

I suppose that's rather convenient if you want to be non-judgmental.