On November 30 the nations are meeting in Paris to discuss global warming. On November 8th I gave this presentation to the Humanists Community in Silicon Valley about the same subject. It’s about what is and isn’t true on both sides of the debate.

This wasn’t a speech I had prepared in advance. What happened was that the scheduled speaker didn’t show so I filled in. I would have done a better job had I prepared but I managed to fake my way through it.

Here’s the points I made. Look for these points in Paris to see if they are on the right track.

  1. Money corrupts scientists on both sides.
  2. We do have a problem. But it’s not as bad as the alarmists say it is.
  3. We have time to fix the problem. But the problem does need to be fixed.
  4. The real problem is overpopulation, not the coal and oil companies.
  5. Sea level rise isn’t happening.
  6. The Pope is more of a threat to the environment than the coal industry because of their stand on birth control.

And the good news is – we can solve these problems. And my good buddy Elon Musk is leading the way to the future. What we need is:

  1. If we had better batteries the gasoline car goes away. Trucks and jets too can be electric. Batteries would also be part of the new electrical grid.
  2. The biggest way to reduce population is to bring technology (internet connected computers) to the third world. Educated productive women don’t reproduce like poor ignorant women on average. New technology will bring the internet to all of the world connecting the other 5 billion people to the global mind.
  3. Solar and wind can easily power the planet. In a few years solar will be cheaper than natural gas.

It will be interesting to see if they manage to focus on the truth. Let’s see how much they talk about over population, electric cars, and batteries.

 



  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Here’s the points I made. Look for these points in Paris to see if they are on the right track.

    Money corrupts scientists on both sides. /// If your are studying the right issue and get the correct result, and if you get money to soldier on, THEN where or what is the corruption? You state am implied equivalency that even if true does not have the same consequences. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    We do have a problem. But it’s not as bad as the alarmists say it is. //// Any you thing this why? What study/theory/group do you use for your science other than the consensus of 96% of qualified scientists that study the issue?

    We have time to fix the problem. But the problem does need to be fixed. /// No….we don’t. Plenty of misery coming in the future even if we 100% stopped co2 pollution RIGHT NOW. Which we aren;t: in fact we are increasing our rate of pollution. We are in fact: DOOMED.

    The real problem is overpopulation, not the coal and oil companies. /// Thats just ANOTHER PROBLEM to be added on. Actually quite a silly statement. china just gave up on one child. Overpop is just a compounder of the issue, not the “real” problem at all, in any rational sense……or do you advocate returning population levels to below a million in the next week or so?

    Sea level rise isn’t happening. //// Ha. ha. Link for that, or talking and believing the personal testimony of our other mod?

    The Pope is more of a threat to the environment than the coal industry because of their stand on birth control. /// Not true. With Green Energy, the Earth can support a few more Billion. Other issues arise, but not human caused extinction as AGW does and IS DOING.

    And the good news is – we can solve these problems. /// Sadly–not in time. The tech is here now to do so but the willingness to use it is not. “Maybe” a crash program to remove carbon from the atmosphere once the threat is realized might work. It will be close given the dimensions of the problem.

    And my good buddy Elon Musk is leading the way to the future. What we need is:

    If we had better batteries the gasoline car goes away. Trucks and jets too can be electric. /// Ha…Ha… Jet: propulsion created by compressing and igniting gas. Electric airplanes?==Yes. Electric Jets?==No. I only hope your confusion over AGW could be as equally easily resolved, but it doesn’t look like it.

    Batteries would also be part of the new electrical grid. /// Absent an entire new storage tech….not enough raw materials to build that many batteries….even in theory. Thats why other tech is being explored. I personally like building a hydrogen technology, but thats just a nice idea to me.

    The biggest way to reduce population is to bring technology (internet connected computers) to the third world. Educated productive women don’t reproduce like poor ignorant women on average. New technology will bring the internet to all of the world connecting the other 5 billion people to the global mind. /// No, its more basic: food and water security. Then shelter and society. Internet? Ha, ha===

    Solar and wind can easily power the planet. In a few years solar will be cheaper than natural gas. /// Its cheaper NOW if clean up costs for nat gas were included. Polluting the Earth without cost does make carbon very cheap.

    It will be interesting to see if they manage to focus on the truth. Let’s see how much they talk about over population, electric cars, and batteries. /// Since these are all side issues of no consequences, even if relevant, I assume NOT.

    Jeeze Marc. I would curse you: “May you live long enough to see what your mindset will cause.” //// But you/me/we will miss it by 3-4 generations.

    Just in: Sequoia’s having survived for 1000’s of years, succumbing to continuing drought.

    SHOCKING….science denying ignorance, if it were not so common.

    • Manny says:

      At least Perkel has done something positive in implementation of solar and you are just full of hot air and criticism. Time for you to put up or shut up.

      And your self induced poverty is not an excuse, get off your ass and get a job to pay for it.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Manny, that is a close question in my mind: like Antarctica, what is the net effect of Marc Perkel?

        Luckily, that question need not be parsed. We simply praise the good, and try to correct the bad.

        Simple.

        Teaching people how to comprehend what they read, to overcome an obvious mind chilling BIAS is always a good thing, hot air or no, on my ass or standing, employed or not.

        Yea, verily!

        • Manny says:

          What is the net effect of lazy bums who live off the government and then whine and snivel about the world falling apart all around them, while contributing NOTHING except to insult the people who disagree with them about AGW?

          Part of the problem, ay?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          ‘teaching people how to comprehend what they read’.
          “Those who can do, those who can’t teach.”

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    “Sea Level Rise Isn’t Happening”

    Marc—do yourself a favor. I reviewed the forum and saw your post on Antarctic Ice and if you would just READ WHAT IS THERE for Christ’s Sake you would know sea level IS RISING.

    Your own linked article says that. You just can’t read straight.

    The growth of ice in Antarctica is removing more water from the ocean THAN THE MELTWATER FROM Antarctica is adding.

    YOU fubar that statement into a world wide phenomenon when its localized to Antarctica. World Wide===>sea level constantly going up.

    Church of Reality? Start with being able to read english?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise /// The rate of sea level rise is INCREASING!

    • Hmeyers says:

      Bobbo unconditionally …
      a) believes things he reads that he agrees with/wants to hear
      b) disbelieves things he reads that he disagrees with

      I think he might be a Republican.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        HM–put your all purpose commentary rubber stamp away and RECOGNIZE this issue is about simply understanding what is read and not interpreting it to its OPPOSITE MEANING.

        Quite a different issue…..or do you also think that there can be electric jet engines or that Antarctica is lowering sea levels?

        Hmmmmm?

        Unlike Marc: can you learn from mistakes that are clearly put in front of you?

        • Hmeyers says:

          I have no opinion of Antarctica.

          The liars in the media on both “sides” of climate change make it nearly impossible to just casually get a picture of what is going on.

          I think we need to reduce energy consumption and pollution and slow human population growth.

          Something people do overlook, ice evaporates even below freezing. The ice in a freezer on the wall is an example of evaporated ice that re-froze. So I don’t know the relevance of any measurements on a continent of ice any way, since they will change. It also means isolated glaciers will melt.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            I have no opinion of Antarctica. ///BS. You accept scientific reports that aren’t contradicted. I totally accept the Link Marc gave us. NO BASIS NOT TO.

            The liars in the media on both “sides” of climate change make it nearly impossible to just casually get a picture of what is going on. /// BS. The sides are not equal. 97% of qualified scientists say its real. 3% of QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS in the same study simply did not express a positions. Asswipes paid to muddy the water are easy to identify. Why you so block headed HM? Is it because Obama was born in Kenya?

            I think we need to reduce energy consumption /// NOT AT ALL as long a it is GREEN.

            and pollution /// Yes, always depending on benefits and costs

            and slow human population growth. /// Or even reverse it.

            Something people do overlook, ice evaporates even below freezing. /// sublimation

            The ice in a freezer on the wall is an example of evaporated ice that re-froze. So I don’t know the relevance of any measurements on a continent of ice any way, since they will change. It also means isolated glaciers will melt. /// Ha, ha….more incompetent lack of BASICS. Sublimation does not mean melting. THE GD FACTS are presented to you and all you can come up with is “both sides lie” and then you conclude the opposite of what is presented to you.

            I’m surrounded by F*cking Idiots.

            READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • NewFormatSux says:

          According to Wikipedia, jet only colloquially refers to a gas engine, and formally doesn’t rule out electric.

          Indeed, when Airbus did a demo, it was noted as an electric jet.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            I doubt that…..and if so, its reporter error.

            Saying “gas” does exclude electric. Not expressly, just logically.

            Got a link? I’ll google myself as I enjoy seeing incorrect info in print.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan#cite_note-flight-14

            Fun article. Looks like a jet, but its not. Just an “E-Fan”

          • NewFormatSux says:

            jet does not equal gas.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            FSN==what have you done?? Joined the Marc Perkel Church of Reading Things to their Opposite Meaning?

            jet1
            jet/
            noun
            noun: jet; plural noun: jets

            1.
            a rapid stream of liquid or gas forced out of a small opening.

            Jet==as opposing to internal combustion piston engines, or external combustion steam engines, or electrical motors.

            Jebus…save me from these clowns that can’t understand simple dictionary meanings of words.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            So you think the gasoline in a jet engine is just being thrown out the back?

            OK, let’s work on your reading comprehension. You have to consider the context. When I said ‘jet’ I meant ‘jet engine’ or ‘jet airplane’, the point of the discussion. ‘Jet engine’ and ‘Jet airplane’ do not have to be gasoline only by definition. According to wikipedia, it is colloquially used to refer to gas powered, but it could be other designs.

            I think I searched for electric jet to find the Airbus demo.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            FSN==we have the same context. Jets create a stream of high speed air coming out the back of the engine the result of air being compressed, gas injected, combustion that expands the air/fuel mixture thereby creating pressure that is directed out the back creating thrust.

            No electricity.

            That EFan Airbus uses electricity to power fan blades for propulsion==just like the props on any “conventional” non-jet aircraft. The fan blades in a jet engine do NOT provide propulsion (directly) they only compress the air to create more power then it gets burned with fuel.

            I think I understand the process.

            Care to dither?

    • Marc Perkel says:

      NASA says Antarctica is GROWING.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Yes Marc, thats what adding more ice than what melts means.

        Good boy.

  3. Mr Diesel - No more bush in the White House, Hillary's or Jeb says:

    I hope I live to see this happen:

    http://express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

    Just so I can laugh in that fucktard Obomba’s face.

  4. MikeN says:

    Overpopulation is not a problem according to the UN. Population will peak and then decline according to their estimates. even ten billion might not happen.

    If solar prices are going to go lower than coal and gas, then you really don’t need to worry about anything else for global warming. The transportation sector is a fraction of the CO2 emissions of the electric one. If solar prices are going lower, then people will adopt it, and there is no need for the subsidies that Elon Musk is collecting. Most of the emissions of the next 50 years will come from growth in energy in the developing world, which already accounts for 2/3 of emissions. So IF solar prices are going lower, then roughly 70% of emissions are taken care of.

  5. Ah_Yea says:

    I’m saddened that Marc will never understand —
    THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH BATTERIES OR WINDMILLS!

    No matter how many times it’s brought up that there are not enough rare earth metals, he still clings to his religion.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      Batteries don’t require rare earth metals.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        My quick foray with google didn’t give me a direct answer to this question. Seems to me there was quite a bit on this 2-3 years or so ago as lithium mines opened up in Bolivia thereby removing the choke hold China had on rare earth?

        Rare Earth indeed needed for any transportation uses as the energy to weight ratio is so critical?

        Batteries for stationary use are too expensive for watts stored?

        anyhoo…..you google batteries and there are articles about the need to store compressed air underground because of the …… and I lose the thread. I’m probably just too tired?

        It does look like batteries are simply a special application that are not generally applicable. That always comes down to “cost” which is always about supply.

        A whole new unknown tech is required. Batteries as we know them today don’t look like they will be part of the grid as commonly thought they might.

  6. Manny says:

    “Global warming summit will produce ‘300,000 TONS of C02’ as 50,000 (Politically posturing hypocrites) travel to Paris from across the world for two-week conference.”

    http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339333/Let-s-hope-talks-aren-t-load-hot-air-Global-warming-summit-produce-300-000-TONS-C02-50-000-people-travel-Paris-world-two-week-conference.html

  7. The Pirate says:

    Global Cooling?
    Vote Hillary – Cold as ice experience!

    Global Warming?
    Vote Hillary – Nobody does hot air better!

    Hillary – What you want when you want it!

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    TV made a disturbing comment: even if we drastically cut co2 emissions from hoomans: its our animal food supply that will still kill us given the .425ppm we already have that will continue to grow.

    Seems all our livestock already puts out more co2 and METHANE than all our transportation combined. Of course, this is “related to” hooman population until it gets disrupted and we are all eating jellyfish and cockroaches.

    Marc: do me a solid and tell us whether or not you understand what your own linked article says>>>>> SEA LEVELS ARE CONSTANTLY RISING.

    This is directly implied in the Heading of the Article: “NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses” which is explained in greater detail in the first paragraph but then explicitly stated near the bottom of the article:

    ““But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    The news you read that should be raised ALARM BELLS is converted by you into a reason not to worry at all.

    Jet Engines.

    • Manny says:

      “TV made a disturbing comment:”

      I saw Walking Zombies on TV, therefore, its real.

  9. Mr Diesel says:

    As I watch Odumbo speak in Paris live right now all I can think is what an embarrassment he is to this country.

    I would rather have Bill Clinton back as to have this idiot (and I hate Clinton).

    Climate change (as it always does) and unemployment causes Islamic terrorists. Brilliant thinking of a jackass.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      I haven’t seen him yet, but one analysis is that AGW lead to the historic never before seen drought conditions in Syria and Iraq forcing farmers off their land into the cities. In the cities, the people protested for reform to support everyone that were out of work. Assad responded with assaults on the protesters that lead to armed revolt and what we have today.

      That kind of Climate Change causation?

      What do you think all the talk about future Water Wars is all about???

      What do you think “change” is all about????????

      Silly Hooman.

  10. Manny says:

    I wonder what caused global warming in 1922? Or 1932?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Do you get all your science news from newspaper reporters talking to fishermen?

      There is a better source.

      • Manny says:

        Yeah, I know….TV.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          TV?

          I agree. Two basic ways. “Science Shows” like Nova or Discovery that discuss the issues with qualified scientists provides a lot of good information.

          Likewise…….. there is Faux Spews which is also good. Listen to their born again chicken hawk pro-Billionaire Sock Pockets and assume they are all wrong and you have confirmation of the first source.

          Silly Hooman. Can’t tell science from a bubble gum wrapper.

          • Manny says:

            I can tell you watch a lot of TV….and you’re an idiot.

            There’s a reason they call it “programming”.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Manny Up: Prove me Wrong:

            Your position on AGW is based on disproven reports that it was warming in 1922.

            How many of those fishermen and newspaper reporters were qualified climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals?

            At least: prove you can follow a line of reasoning by answering Zero. Then recognize: you got nothing.

            silly hooman.

          • Manny says:

            Wow “Faux Spews”..how original, can I borrow that? Moron (yes, that would be you), you do know that Fox News hates Donald Trump.

            As far as the Discovery Chanel are you fucking serious?

            http://businessinsider.com/discovery-channels-fake-documentaries-2014-9

            http://motherjones.com/media/2015/11/racing-extinction-climate-change-discovery-john-hoffman

            So you really get your “science” from this crap.

            Someone deprogram this moron before he hurts himself.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            I’ve only seen Bill Nye once. I think it was on John Stewart. That skit where one nut job saying it was cold today therefore AGW is false, then they had 97 other qualified scientists saying AGW is here.

            Its the hooman psyche: one person says X, and the other says Not X and it sounds like a 50/50 proposition.

            but it isn’t.

            If you don’t believe AGW is going to kill off most life on this planet in the next 300 years ABSENT the intervention of something that is not even identified as yet……. then you are simply a fool.

            Hoomans: so bad at cause and effect. Totally incapable at connecting cause seperated by centuries from its effect.

            Thats what AGW is all about. Issues beyond our daily perception…….. “common sense” too.

          • Manny says:

            Oh, and lets not forget about the award winning documentary on mermaids.

            “Discovery-owned channel Animal Planet has aired two other fake documentaries in recent years — replete with actors, fabricated events, CGI, and faked footage — which explore the apparently scientific evidence for mermaids.”

            I wanna believe, because mermaids are…well, so HOT.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Mammie – you crack me up. Reminds me of Pedro before he got his donkey.

            Fake News hates Donald Trump?==so what???

            Discovery has shows on Mermaids?==so what???

            You know Mandy, you are building a record of being totally irrelevant.

            Sucks to be you.

          • ± says:

            **** bobbo shared with erudition ****
            Sucks to be you.
            ***********************************

            So how does that feel?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            P/M==we usually disagree, but usually I understand your position. Not this time.

            Throwing away your lines too fast?

            …..as Mandy is incompetent at the science and in the argument for any position, I thought I’d move the arena to Insult Rap….and he’s not doing too well here either.

            ……..but I dither.

          • Manny says:

            Discovery Channel, what a hoot.

  11. NewFormatSux says:

    Obama got to a real issue while speaking in Paris about the Planned Parenthood shooting.

    “I mean, I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings: this just doesn’t happen in other countries.”

    Speaking in Paris…

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Ha, ha…..Obama also says we have a tradition of offering sanctuary for refugees.

      ……..but then he did say: “The Dumbass Pukes think of Leadership only as using the military to invade other countries.”

      that boy is full of contradictions!

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Marc: congrats on your speech. Few people can speak as well extemporaneously as you display.

    I also recognize you have not banned or edited or censored me and that could be your saving grace especially as you get disagreement everytime you post on CC.

    …………but……… don’t take all criticism as simple disagreement and values. LOOK at the substance of the critique. for instance, while its fun to post misleading headlines, you take it too far going from Headline on one Article to a bullet point in this post.

    Please just deal with Reality? AGW may be true or false but the article you referenced was an ALARM BELL that sea level is rising. For now, Antarctica is taking water out of the ocean. BUT THE LEVEL IS STILL RISING. As the article says: this is concerning because when the LOCALIZED conditions of Antarctica get back to normal, the sea level rise is going to increase all that more. That too may be true or false….but you ought to at least understand and correctly read what is printed right before your own eyes. Once your recognize this very basic mistake you have made at least this once, you look more closely at future things you read, and ultimately, become a man of science???

    Lead on.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      I thought you might have been right that Marc got it wrong, but all your blabbering made me suspicious, and I watched the video. It is quite obvious that you either didn’t watch or didn’t understand anything Marc said. He has not misunderstood anything on sea level rise.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Correct. I responded to the OP.

        So……..you are saying in Marc’s impromptu speech he got sea level rise right, but got it wrong in this Post on Antarctica of last week and got it wrong in the written header to this post?

        Gee. Got a time stamp where Marc got it right?

        Which position do you think is Marc’s settled and firm opinion? The same one in writing over weeks, or the one off the cuff on video?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          I think he is correct in this post, and the video confirms it. Reading comprehension. In this case audio comprehension as well.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Ha, ha….FSN.. what was correct? Copy and paste it.

            I copied and pasted from Marc’s Antarctic Link how sea level IS GOING UP. Marc and now you say its going down.

            Ever notice you find nuts in bunches?

            Prove me wrong: post it the evidence, not your own cross eyed conclusions.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I was gonna find the time stamp for you but had to stop to VOMIT at 6:45. “co2 comes from the air so we can burn all the coal and oil we want because it just goes back into the air.”

        THAT makes retards sound good.

        Indeed, when plants started turning co2 into oxygen, the atmosphere was TOXIC AS A POISONOUS GAS/ATMOSPHERE and only anaerobic life forms existed.

        Not “basic science” as such. More arcane…but really….to spout such nonsense reveals an incurious intellect, one not willing to research an issue and deal with facts that are contrary to what was thought before confirming.

        Marc says co2 is “a problem.” Just not a big deal as it is made out to be. Why is it a problem at all if co2 all came from the air to begin with?????

        Know what I mean????

    • Marc Perkel says:

      Except that the sea level is not rising – significantly anyhow. Inches per century.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Too lazy, or too sure, to even check your facts?

        Its .12 inches per year or one foot per century.

        http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

        Facts….or just an estimate actually which is higher than what was experienced the last century.

        Silly to deny verifiable facts.

        Care to confirm what your Antarctica article actually said?

  13. Hmeyers says:

    Here is Bobbo not understanding science:

    “Indeed, when plants started turning co2 into oxygen, the atmosphere was TOXIC AS A POISONOUS GAS/ATMOSPHERE and only anaerobic life forms existed.”

    There are 2 glaring errors that a high school kid would know better than to say.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      HM–I take you as a considered opiner. I was going to google when the atmosphere was mostly co2……but thinking more on it……indeed “if” coal and oil were formed during the age of dinosaurs which is commonly said, then all the co2 was “up there.” Hmmmm…something is not adding up. Like most of the coal and oil was put down long before dinosaurs…or consistent with what I posted: long before oxygen breathing animals?

      Point remains that if we burned all the coal and oil we could find that the air would be directly toxic killing aerobic animals on being inhaled.

      What are you thinking?

      • Hmeyers says:

        A) Plant life did not evolve on the surface.

        B) The first organisms using photosynthesis were not plants, but prokayotes. They still are around today, as primitive as they were back then.

        C) There was never a CO2 dominated atmosphere. The early atmosphere was an abiotic atmosphere of water, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and SO2. It would be about as harmless as breathing in helium from a balloon. Like helium, it obviously doesn’t have oxygen in it so it’s useless. But certainly not toxic.

  14. Hmeyers says:

    And might as well …

    D) Plants need oxygen. Yep, it’s quite true. Especially at night.
    E*) Plants don’t turn carbon oxide into oxygen. They turn water into oxygen. The carbon dioxide joins with the hydrogen to form sugar or alcohol. In fact, the earliest microbes — which is still around — did the alcohol thing breaking off an OH from the water.

    More sophisticated organisms do the Krebs cycle (several steps http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lecturesf04am/krebs01a.jpg ) and make sugar, the old primitive ones do anaerobic respiration and make alcohol.

    (* I’m just pointing out E)

  15. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Back from my nap and happy to see you have posted….and then again. Lets give it a look see:

    Hmeyers says:
    12/1/2015 at 9:03 pm

    A) Plant life did not evolve on the surface. //// Of course it did/has/will continue to evolve on the surface (sic). I never said it did or didn’t, but just to your statement. I think you mean Plant life did not first appear on the surface of the land or water but in the oceans below the surface. This separates said life from the atmosphere gaining its needed gases as they were dissolved and mixed in the water? I don’t see what that changes.

    B) The first organisms using photosynthesis were not plants, but prokayotes. They still are around today, as primitive as they were back then. /// I agree. I just spoke too fast–almost as if giving an impromptu speech? But in the context of coal and oil, my high school science that I remember loosely was that coal was produced by plants dying off while oil was a combo of microscopic oceanic plants and animals–not dinosaurs at all. I’ll google this point later.

    C) There was never a CO2 dominated atmosphere. //// OK. I recall dimly google this issue 5-6 years ago and finding co2 levels were very high. I recall it as “common knowledge” that land life and large multicelled animals didn’t get going until ocean phyto-plankton turned atmospheric co2 into O2. O2 provides more energy for animals to burn than does a co2 cycle so animals have grown bigger in the past due to higher levels of o2 in the air. Recall those dragon flies with 3 foot wingspans? The issue here with 5 Billion Years to cherry pick, I’m not sure of the timing of everything. This too will have to be googled.

    The early atmosphere was an abiotic atmosphere of water, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and SO2. It would be about as harmless as breathing in helium from a balloon. /// Ummm–without oxygen—we would die. Life being able to form, abiotic as you say, does NOT imply it was compatible with all forms of life==like oxygen breathers. Ha, ha. I call that a brain fart and give you a mulligan on this. Google will tell us quickly the level of o2 and more relevantly the level of co2 which was the stimulus of my vomiting.

    Like helium, it obviously doesn’t have oxygen in it so it’s useless. But certainly not toxic. /// Purely definitional. You would die in minutes if that is all you had to breathe. Again…not the issue today.

  16. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    On a roll, HM continues with:

    Hmeyers says:
    12/1/2015 at 9:14 pm

    And might as well …

    D) Plants need oxygen. Yep, it’s quite true. Especially at night. /// I used to know that but it dropped out of my conscious thinking. Its that night time cycle I assume. And with your input, I’ll further guess as I have forgotten, it must be that Krebs Cycle? Its irrelevant to the issue at hand, but good to remember.

    E*) Plants don’t turn carbon oxide into oxygen. They turn water into oxygen. The carbon dioxide joins with the hydrogen to form sugar or alcohol. In fact, the earliest microbes — which is still around — did the alcohol thing breaking off an OH from the water. /// Damn! I forgot that too. Refreshed from your argument, it occur to me that “actually” plants need co2, water, and sunlight to “use” all three to make sugar for their metabollic processes. They don’t “make” o2 as much as o2 is made as a waste product and excreted into the environment. But your point is fair enough, even though again its not relevant to the issue at hand. But I am happy to be reminded of these basic fact of our friends: the plants.

    More sophisticated organisms do the Krebs cycle (several steps http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lecturesf04am/krebs01a.jpg ) and make sugar, the old primitive ones do anaerobic respiration and make alcohol. /// Now–theres a fact I don’t think I forgot. Good to learn.

    (* I’m just pointing out E)

  17. Likes2LOL says:

    The way I look at it, if over a hundred years you take all those millions (billions?) of TONS of coal out from underground and burn it, plus all those billions (trillions?) of barrels of oil out from underground and burn it, plus at the same time reduce the overall total foliage on the planet, somehow the carbon balance in the atmosphere might just get thrown off a smidgeon. But what do I know? 😉

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Well thats true but standing alone as many say it might be good for us because it stimulates plants to grow. All that “excess” carbon will eventually be recycled by the earth. Very complex process there described in one of the links above, easy to google. There are 4-5 carbon cycles of various lengths. Some short on the order of 5 years, other long on the order of 100K years.

      Its all very complicated. On issues orders of magnitude simpler, we rely on experts. On this issue, Big Corp floods the market place of ideas with false information for their own short term gain, and too many swallow it hook line and sinker.

  18. New Fiat Currency Cartel propaganda machine says:

    Thats enough Bobbo, we don’t pay extra.
    Good Job!

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      No check huh?

      Well…..considering I’m expecting to get banned…… “thats ok”

      This has become my one hottest topic……. because unlike all the other issues: we ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. Why the scientists are yelling and screaming is beyond me. They say it in flat monotone with always a hopeful “maybe.”

      Indeed maybe if (USA?) alone spend money on tech to REMOVE CO2 FROM THE AIR on a massive scale. Otherwise: we are already DEAD.

      My second issue without much passion is for the same reason: USA should have an asteroid defense program.

      Everything else only kills most people……….not ALL PEOPLE.

      It makes a difference.

      • IM72 says:

        Two thumbs up, bobbo. I love following you until you inevitably get to a point where you can’t help yourself and start calling people names. That’s where you always lose me. My loss I suppose.

  19. Manny says:

    Geez, get a grip.

  20. NewFormatSux says:

    From an IPCC report:

    ” but a trend in antarctic shrinkage of about 90 Gt yr-1, primarily because of retreat of the West Antarctic grounding line in response to the end of the last ice age.”

    This amount is about the same as the total ice loss. So if global warming is not responsible for the ice loss, that puts a big dent in the conclusions.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      That makes no sense at all. Want to rephrase using different words to make some sense?

      Yes, loss of ice is related to warming.

      Recognize Antarctica is Antarctica and not the whole world?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Antarctica is where most of the ice is.

        The paper attributes some of the ice loss to something other than CO2 global warming.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Ha, ha…..totally irrelevant…..and the Main Point of the article is ice GAIN in Antarctica.

          Your reading level is on par with Marc’s.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            You really are in no position to be evaluating others’ reading levels.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            What level of expertise does it take to distinguish between ice GAIN and ice LOSS?

            …..I’m in no position to judge…..but I think that is around Fifth Grade.

            ……or would argue lower than that: “No, its college level as I experienced it” spake WSN as passionately as he could. Hard for a castrato to sound serious.

            Ha, ha.

  21. Hmeyers says:

    @Bobbo

    “Like helium, it obviously doesn’t have oxygen in it so it’s useless. But certainly not toxic. /// Purely definitional. You would die in minutes if that is all you had to breathe. Again…not the issue today.”

    Words have definitions. Poisonous/toxic mean poisonous or toxic.

    You can breathe in natural gas or helium all day, they are harmless. They put the “egg smell” in natural gas because it can be all around you and you’d never know it.

    Ammonia is a poisonous gas, too much and you die. Chlorine is a poisonous gas.

    If you want poisonous and toxic to have special Bobbo definitions, fine.

    There is “Bobbo math”, “Bobbo science” and “Bobbo word definitions” wouldn’t be much of a stretch.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      All of the above and this is what you come up with?

      ha, ha…… what a retarded response.

      I SAID IT WAS DEFINITIONAL…….and gave the definitions ………….and you come back with definitions.

      Retarded.

      • Hmeyers says:

        “All of the above and this is what you come up with?”

        The one link you posted was a good read.

        “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen”

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Thanks. We would all benefit from knowing more……keeping it remembered being the hard part.

  22. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    100th post!

    Yay!!!!!!!!

    What do I win? ………..Oh Jebus, looks like only a response to the Science Deniers….although one looks more personal than science.

    BWHAHAHAHAHAH.

  23. NewFormatSux says:

    >I also recognize you have not banned or edited or censored me and that could be your saving grace especially as you get disagreement everytime you post on CC.

    My how fortunate Marc is.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      It is. Too many people are not open to even hearing views they don’t agree with. blog communities can be very much that way, excluding all those who disagree.

      THIS FORUM remains open even as Marc gets strong disagreement, even condemnation, from several posters, including myself.

  24. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Just caught James Hansen interviewed at the Paris Conference. He assumes the most direct and immediate damage from AGW will be the collapse of the Antarctic Ice Shield causing an overnight rise in sea level of “meters.”

    So….after about 3 years of wondering, thats the answer I’m going with. When the Antarctic Ice Shield collapses….then Hoomans will wake up that they failed to act in time. Another 50 years of warming “baked” (sic) into the system…..and then we will all die.

    He also concluded the Paris Conference is a FRAUD. Gubments pretending to take action, when no effective action at all is being taken. We need a world wide tax/fee structure on the production of carbon. Only fair to make this retail item pay for all its costs?

    Who could disagree?

    We coulda been great!

    • Hmeyers says:

      In China in the 1950s, Chairman Mao urged citizens to contribute to the “Great Leap Forward”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace

      So common citizens would have a make-shift iron smelting operations in their back yard.

      No training, no education, the citizens made iron.

      Guess what the quality of the iron was?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I’ll guess it was shit to begin with and got better?

        What do I win………now????

        ………..and this relates to anything posted……..how????

        • Hmeyers says:

          The quality of the iron was terrible.

          A fair portion of the climate change news and articles are written by people in the media with no training or education in science.

          Many of them are in the same league as what you call the “idiots on Twitter”.

          This makes the most climate news articles, regardless of what is being asserted (i.e. “the side”) the interpretation of something by an idiot who doesn’t quite understand what they are writing about.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            HM–you are being too subtle for me. Do I have to reply to you on Twitter to get the connection between China’s Early Iron production by the Proletariat and “anything” to do with the climate?

            James Hansen has already said it: The Paris conference is a FRAUD.

            Saw the firs time ever news item that some scietists are studying what to do when the Powers that Be decide co2 is real and must be fixed. I have said some kind of mechanism to remove co2 from the air, but the listed suggestions were called “geoforming” or some such and was mostly how to put aerosols in the air to reflect the sunlight coming in. Interesting that, as the co2 pollution underneath presumably would continue and be immediately worse once the aerosols dissipated.

            Well, atleast they are thinking about what is unavoidable.
            Know what I mean?

          • Hmeyers says:

            I’m not surprised the Paris talks were a fraud.

            Elites are elites. They like power and money. Europe is run by adminsitrators and minsters and Bilderberg people.

            Climate change, from their perspective, is a vehicle to secure power/money.

            Europeans complain the EU governments don’t do anything to combat climate change.

    • MikeN says:

      Unlike a lot of climate scientists, I don’t think James Hansen is lying. He is not just an activist hyping global warming for his own ends. He didn’t try to ignore the pause in global warming, and he has pushed hard for nuclear power.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Lyin Mike: I see nothing has changed.

        blah, blah, blah…… so name the lie.

        Note: The “Hide the Decline” Hockey Stick as a lie has been totally debunked. but…..in the interest of not wallowing in the mud with pigs, I’ll give you that one.

        Anything else? One lie?????

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Michael Mann’s Dire Predictions.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            They are all true. Todays record breaking weather events one after the other just “consistent” with the theory.

            Sucks to be you….. and soon ….. to be everybody else.

            Silly Hoomans.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            40 years ago you would have said the same about Paul Ehrlich’s doomsaying. The battle to feed humanity is lost. 100s of millions will die in famine in the next decade.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Children just won’t know what snow is.

          This is the last chance to save the planet.

    • IM72 says:

      The only way I’d agree is if I’m in the group of receivers of those taxes. What else is new?

  25. NewFormatSux says:

    JCD’s tweets are more informative than Perkel’s video, and much more succinct.

  26. Hmeyers says:

    Have big meeting. Flying in a lot of jets.

    Declare meeting successful! Environments saved!

    Mission Accomplished! Great job!


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19479 access attempts in the last 7 days.