Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, December 27, 2009

"Junk Science" on "global warming"

-
"Junk Science" has weighed in the real inconvenient truth- hint- "man made climate change" is for chicken little-types.

What a freakin' surprise! CO2 is NOT a pollutant. CO2 is required for plant growth.

Plants like CO2. They need CO2.

Ice age is bad. Bad for the plants and bad for us.

Warm is good. Good for the plants and good for us.

posted by Joe G @ 8:07 PM  

37 Comments:

  • At 10:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Is there an amount of CO2 that is bad, or is just any old concentration a good thing?

     

  • At 10:40 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I say we shoot for a 97% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That'd be good, right?

     

  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is there an amount of CO2 that is bad, or is just any old concentration a good thing?

    Bad for what? A "good thing" for what/ who?

    I say we shoot for a 97% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That'd be good, right?

    Again, good for what/ who?

    All the science is saying is that an increase to 385 parts per million is not causing the climate to change.

    Also I said warm is good for the plants and us.

    Obviously too much CO2 is not good for us as we need O2.

    But anyway I say we put 97% CO2 in your apartment and see what happens to you.

     

  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, so there is a concentration of CO2 that would be bad for humans. Well. Who knew?

     

  • At 6:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, so there is a concentration of CO2 that would be bad for humans.

    Only if we breathe it.

    Well. Who knew?

    Most likely everyone who is smarter than a fifth grader.

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, is leaving CO2 production unchecked a good or bad idea?

     

  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, is leaving CO2 production unchecked a good or bad idea?

    It isn't the CO2 that we need to worry about.

    As I have told you before there was a time when the CO2 concentration was 1950 parts per million- and life thrived during that period.

    Pollution- real pollution- is what we need to concentrate on, as in stopping it. CO2 isn't a pollutant.

    If it is then so is water vapor.

    That and we should stop clear-cutting forests, start planting- and if we implement my plan of water distribution, all will be fine- that is until mother nature just wants to start throwing fits.

     

  • At 12:01 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow, Joe. You are a deep thinker! Just for the shit of it, why don't you tell us if you believe that there is an atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is dangerous for human beings.

    Then, if you can find the time between super-secret hero missions, could you tell us if--just theoretically--it would be possible to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to reach that concentration.

     

  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow Erik, you sure are an asshole!

    JUst for the shit of it perhaps you can tell me the relevance of your queries.

    But before you answer that perhaps you can tell me whether or not you even read the article that I linked to in the OP.

    IOW Erik it appears that once again you don't have anything to say and you think that the shit you pull out of your ass is meaningful discourse.

    Amazingly pathetic...

     

  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I did read it, Joe. Do my reading habits have a direct bearing on your inability to answer questions?

     

  • At 6:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Perhaps you should try being a big boy and stop relying on others to tell you what to think. Your opinions are your own, Joe. It doesn't matter what I think, or it shouldn't. Your inability to answer simple questions without weighing it against what others might think is sad. You should have more self-esteem.

     

  • At 7:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You read it?

    Doubtful.

    Did you understand it? Any of it?

    Ya see the thing to do would be to discuss what was posted there as that is the topic of this thread.

    Do my reading habits have a direct bearing on your inability to answer questions?

    Your inability to stay on topic as well as your inability to answer questions has a direct bearing on how or if I respond to you.

     

  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps you should try being a big boy and stop relying on others to tell you what to think.

    Perhaps you should stop projecting your deficiencies onto others.

    Your inability to answer simple questions without weighing it against what others might think is sad.

    More projection.

    Your inability to stay on topic, coupled with your ability to ask irrelevant questions is what is really sad.

    IOW Erik it appears that once again you don't have anything to say and you think that the shit you pull out of your ass is meaningful discourse.

    And the fact that you cannot tell me the relevance of your posts proves that you are nothing but a chicken shit loser.

     

  • At 7:28 PM, Blogger Jack said…

    "As I have told you before there was a time when the CO2 concentration was 1950 parts per million- and life thrived during that period."

    Was that recently? or was that about 500 million years ago when the sun was significantly cooler?

     

  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, back to the question that was asked and avoided...

    Do you believe that there is any atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is harmful to humans? Do you believe it would be possible (even theoretically) to put this amount of CO2 into the atmosphere?

    Remember that your opinion on this topic is what matters? It does not matter if you are right or not, or if others think you are right or not. Give it a try.

     

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jack:
    or was that about 500 million years ago when the sun was significantly cooler?

    You have the data which demonstrates this?

    Also do you have any data which demonstrates humans are responsible for this climate change?

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you believe that there is any atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is harmful to humans?

    This question is not relevant to the topic.

    Please stay on topic or go away.

     

  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "As I have told you before there was a time when the CO2 concentration was 1950 parts per million- and life thrived during that period."

    Jack:
    Was that recently?

    It was during the Jurassic period.

    The mean temp was 3C higher than it is today and life thrived.

     

  • At 6:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    It is on topic, Joe. Why can't you answer the question? I'll shorten it for you in order to keep it within your attention span:

    CO2 concentration, possible 2 B 2 hi 4 humans?

    Can this concentration B reached?

     

  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe: "As I have told you before there was a time when the CO2 concentration was 1950 parts per million- and life thrived during that period."

    Jack: "Was that recently?"

    Joe: "It was during the Jurassic period."


    So, you're citing data that is 150 million years old? Do you think that is relevant?

     

  • At 7:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you're citing data that is 150 million years old?

    Data is data no matter how old it is.

    There isn't an expiration date on data.

    Do you think that is relevant?

    Why wouldn't it be?

    What is the time limit for data?

     

  • At 7:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is on topic, Joe. Why can't you answer the question?

    If it was on topic you should be able to tell me the relevance.

    Yet you have refused to do so.

     

  • At 9:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, let's say that all life isn't created equal. If I gave data from say, 1 billion years ago, would this be relevant? Earth was teeming with life 1 billion years ago.

    So, Joe, if I said that the CO2 levels now were the same as they were 1 billion years ago, would that be a good or bad thing for humans?

     

  • At 9:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, let's say that all life isn't created equal.

    So you are saying that life was created.

    If I gave data from say, 1 billion years ago, would this be relevant?

    You, give data? Yeah right.

    Earth was teeming with life 1 billion years ago.

    It was?

    Your evidence for that is?

    So, Joe, if I said that the CO2 levels now were the same as they were 1 billion years ago, would that be a good or bad thing for humans?

    Well the CO2 level now is not a bad thing for humans.

    But anyways Sam Adams, Jack and the Captain are all calling my name.

    c-ya next year...

     

  • At 1:51 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe says that CO2 levels from 150 million years ago were higher than today so we shouldn't care.

    Does this mean that we can cite CO2 levels from 1 billion years ago with the same relevance? It should.

    So, CO2 levels from 1 billion years ago were as much as 200 times the current concentration. So, according to Joe's logic, we shouldn't worry until we reach something above 200 times the current CO2 concentration.

    Does that sound about right, Joe? 200 times the current CO2 concentration is alright for human life?

     

  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe says that CO2 levels from 150 million years ago were higher than today so we shouldn't care.

    That is right. Life thrived during that period.

    Does this mean that we can cite CO2 levels from 1 billion years ago with the same relevance? It should.

    Did life thrive 1 billion years ago?

    I noticed you have failed to provide the data for that.

    So, CO2 levels from 1 billion years ago were as much as 200 times the current concentration. So, according to Joe's logic, we shouldn't worry until we reach something above 200 times the current CO2 concentration.

    1- You have to provide a valid scientific reference for that concentration.

    2- You have failed to provide any scientific data that demonstrates that life thrived.

    Does that sound about right, Joe?

    No.

    So what we have is Erik Pratt once again not supporting his claims- no surprise there, and thinking that is unsupported claims actually mean something.

    In one post Erik says the CO2 concentration one billion years ago was the same it is today.

    In his next post he says that the CO2 concentration one billion years ago was 200 times what it is today.

    So which is it Erik?


    And what is the evididence that supports your nonsensical popstings?

     

  • At 8:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway-

    This is what I could find:

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Greater 1.4 Billion Years Ago-

    " Now, a measurement of the fossil record using a new instrument has confirmed a portion of the model. Atmospheric CO2 level 1.4 billion years ago was at least ten to 200 times greater than today, according to the new research."

    10 to 200

    "They conducted their studies on the microscopic fossil Dictyosphaera delicata from Proterozoic shales in northern China."

    Local concentrations of CO2 can account for their findings.

     

  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Google. Use it.

    Multi-cellular life 1 billion years ago.

    Life reached land 1 billion years ago.

    Plants at 1.3 billion years ago

    Early life in atmospheric conditions unsuitable for most current Earth lifeforms--over 1 billion years ago.

    Alright. Since life is well established on earth pre-1 billion years ago, can we move on to why such old data is relevant to human life?

     

  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK so there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere 1.4 billion years ago.

    However it is obvious that humans did not put it there.

    IOW it is obvious that other sources can put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans.

    So why are we focusing on what humans do?

     

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And clownie- there is a huge difference between being established and thriving.

    During the Jurassic life thrived- animal, plant, fungi- all kingdoms.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1 billion years of multi-cellular life- however no animals until after snowball Earth.

    All land organisms- including planst would have been wiped out by snowball Earth.

    As a matter of fact scientists say that all but the simplest of living organisms got wiped out during that period.

    But anyways I answered Erik the day before he decided to poat again:

    But anyway-

    This is what I could find:

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Greater 1.4 Billion Years Ago-

    " Now, a measurement of the fossil record using a new instrument has confirmed a portion of the model. Atmospheric CO2 level 1.4 billion years ago was at least ten to 200 times greater than today, according to the new research."

    10 to 200

    "They conducted their studies on the microscopic fossil Dictyosphaera delicata from Proterozoic shales in northern China."

    Local concentrations of CO2 can account for their findings.

    Why did Erik ignore that post?

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Because it is irrelevant. Life was well established, diversified and abundant in times where the CO2 concentration was stupendously higher than it is today.

    The question I asked was are these conditions suitable for human life. It is ridiculous to cite data from ancient times and say that we shouldn't worry because conditions hundreds of millions of years ago were "the same" or "worse" or whatever. That data is irrelevant, Joe.

    Your 150 million year old data or my 1 billion year old data are the same--irrelevant.

    Why don't you focus on present day conditions and try to determine if human life is compatible with rising CO2 concentrations?

     

  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Life was well established, diversified and abundant in times where the CO2 concentration was stupendously higher than it is today.

    My point was about thriving life- all kingdoms.

    Your data could just be local CO2 concentrations.

    And that is very relevant.

    Also you are still a fucking clown.

    And clowns do not get to decide what scientific data is and isn't relevant.

    Why don't you focus on present day conditions and try to determine if human life is compatible with rising CO2 concentrations?

    Why don't you focus on the fact that CO2 ain't the fucking problem?

     

  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Happy New Year (and Christmas too), Joe.

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    CO2 is not a problem? So, just to be clear, you are stating that CO2 concentrations can rise indefinitely without harming human life?

    Is this a true or false reading of your stance?

     

  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CO2 is not a problem?

    It is not THE problem.

    As I said this planet needs CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Life thrived with much higher concentrations then there are today.

    So if we just do what I said earlier we will be OK.

    So, just to be clear, you are stating that CO2 concentrations can rise indefinitely without harming human life?

    Why just CO2?

    Why not pick on nitrogen?

    Let's say if the atmosphere was 99% nitrogen, would that be good or bad for humans?

    What about argon- if the atmosphere were mostly argon would that be a good or bad thing for humans?

    Methane- you being full of shit- should understand methane- what if te atmosphere were mostly methane- would that be a good or bad thing for humans?

     

  • At 6:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Back at you Rich...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home