Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also its not all oxygen. In fact its mostly nitrogen and that would make all kinds of funky nitrates like ammonia. 3 parts nitrate one part water makes for extremely caustic substances. The aurora borealis across the horizon and on fire then dumping nitric acid. Sounds lovely.

[Wild Cobra]

Also its not all oxygen. In fact its mostly nitrogen and that would make all kinds of funky nitrates like ammonia. 3 parts nitrate one part water makes for extremely caustic substances. The aurora borealis across the horizon and on fire then dumping nitric acid. Sounds lovely.

That is a stretch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is a stretch.

but it happening from magic sky man who told noah to make his boat and save animals isn't?

The composition of the atmosphere is what it is. There is much more nitrogen than oxygen and it will all react when a ton of high energy protons are making collisions. It's precisely why we cannot use open air hydrogen combustion engines. It produces nitric acid amongst other things. HNO is very caustic stuff with a ph over 11 and it is much more likely to occur with the given ratios than H20.

We established a long time ago that you suck at chemistry.

[Phenomanul]

but it happening from magic sky man who told noah to make his boat and save animals isn't?

The composition of the atmosphere is what it is. There is much more nitrogen than oxygen and it will all react when a ton of high energy protons are making collisions. It's precisely why we cannot use open air hydrogen combustion engines. It produces nitric acid amongst other things. HNO is very caustic stuff with a ph over 11 and it is much more likely to occur with the given ratios than H20.

We established a long time ago that you suck at chemistry.

So if you're so great at chemistry why would you confuse nitroxyl (HNO) and nitric acid (HNO3); two completely different species... Just reads entirely wrong to see a phrase that says "nitric acid...." followed by a phrase that suggests it has a basic pH, i.e. "very caustic stuff...".

Anyways, since you're such a stickler for technical semantics but never admit to any mistakes of your own, I'd thought I point out this very elementary one.

[Wild Cobra]

but it happening from magic sky man who told noah to make his boat and save animals isn't?

The composition of the atmosphere is what it is. There is much more nitrogen than oxygen and it will all react when a ton of high energy protons are making collisions. It's precisely why we cannot use open air hydrogen combustion engines. It produces nitric acid amongst other things. HNO is very caustic stuff with a ph over 11 and it is much more likely to occur with the given ratios than H20.

We established a long time ago that you suck at chemistry.

Wow...

You are a ing idiot. You are making things up that are known not to happen.

It takes NO to react that way, not N2. There are just trace abounds of it in the atmosphere. Something like 10,000 or more times O2 is present.

Do you make thing up and hope others will believe you?

[DarrinS]

So if you're so great at chemistry why would you confuse nitroxyl (HNO) and nitric acid (HNO3); two completely different species... Just reads entirely wrong to see a phrase that says "nitric acid...." followed by a phrase that suggests it has a basic pH, i.e. "very caustic stuff...".

Anyways, since you're such a stickler for technical semantics but never admit to any mistakes of your own, I'd thought I point out this very elementary one.

He does have a caustic personality though

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if you're so great at chemistry why would you confuse nitroxyl (HNO) and nitric acid (HNO3); two completely different species... Just reads entirely wrong to see a phrase that says "nitric acid...." followed by a phrase that suggests it has a basic pH, i.e. "very caustic stuff...".

Anyways, since you're such a stickler for technical semantics but never admit to any mistakes of your own, I'd thought I point out this very elementary one.

I see I have you to the point where you are desperate to 'beat' me on some point. I never claimed to be a chemist or a stickler. I do know that there is more N than O in the atmosphere and the central point still stands despite my forgetting suffixs. Bravo on being extremely petty and missing the forest for a tree. More N = nitrates.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow...

You are a ing idiot. You are making things up that are known not to happen.

It takes NO to react that way, not N2. There are just trace abounds of it in the atmosphere. Something like 10,000 or more times O2 is present.

Do you make thing up and hope others will believe you?

And when you inundate the gas cloud with high energy protons like the sun emits in your theoretical 'solar burp' they are going to form all manner of NH and OH from the initial reaction ast he diatoms split and you have tons of free radicals. Both of the reactions are exothermic and add energy (re:explode). You are going to get all kinds of out of a massive explosion the breadth of the arc of the sky your plum collides with.

[Phenomanul]

I see I have you to the point where you are desperate to 'beat' me on some point. I never claimed to be a chemist or a stickler. I do know that there is more N than O in the atmosphere and the central point still stands despite my forgetting suffixs. Bravo on being extremely petty and missing the forest for a tree. More N = nitrates.

all I heard... was "squeky, squeaky, squeaky..." (backpeddaling)

A response along the lines of: "fair enough" would have demonstrated far more character than what you just wrote. As it stands, you just come off as someone who always has to be "right"... and you've just demonstrated as much with the quoted response.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all I heard... was "squeky, squeaky, squeaky..." (backpeddaling)

A response along the lines of: "fair enough" would have demonstrated far more character than what you just wrote. As it stands, you just come off as someone who always has to be "right"... and you've just demonstrated as much with the quoted response.

I just said you were right. I get that it is important to that you prove me wrong on something and I admitted that it was a mistake on my part. I was wrong on a particular suffix.

Nitrates are still bad and as a whole are very acidic HNO does have a ph of 11 and it is what it is. MY central argument is still there. You are still exposed as butthurt and frantic to win a point though. You're better than most of these nitwits though. Darrin and WC run away and dissemble.

[DarrinS]

I just said you were right. I get that it is important to that you prove me wrong on something and I admitted that it was a mistake on my part. I was wrong on a particular suffix.

Nitrates are still bad and as a whole are very acidic HNO does have a ph of 11 and it is what it is. MY central argument is still there. You are still exposed as butthurt and frantic to win a point though. You're better than most of these nitwits though. Darrin and WC run away and dissemble.

Fuzzy. Acids have low pH.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy. Acids have low pH.

That is right it generates hydroxides. My bad. Point still stands as to the outcome of colliding high energy proton clouds into the earths atmosphere. All kinds of permutations of H, N, O, and C.

[Wild Cobra]

And when you inundate the gas cloud with high energy protons like the sun emits in your theoretical 'solar burp' they are going to form all manner of NH and OH from the initial reaction ast he diatoms split and you have tons of free radicals. Both of the reactions are exothermic and add energy (re:explode). You are going to get all kinds of out of a massive explosion the breadth of the arc of the sky your plum collides with.

LOL...

Your stupidity seems to be growing exponentially!

[CosmicCowboy]

I just said you were right. I get that it is important to that you prove me wrong on something and I admitted that it was a mistake on my part. I was wrong on a particular suffix.

Nitrates are still bad and as a whole are very acidic HNO does have a ph of 11 and it is what it is. MY central argument is still there. You are still exposed as butthurt and frantic to win a point though. You're better than most of these nitwits though. Darrin and WC run away and dissemble.

now look who is really blustering.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

now look who is really blustering.

You guys are arguing about semantics and none of you are arguing that the nitrogen will react. Sorry I don't edit my posts better but as long as nitrogen is in the air, it's going to react along with everything else and create nitrates which again present the problems I have detailed. They are exothermic reactions and it is what it is.

Blustering is just saying "you're wrong" and then adding a smiley exactly like you and dumb have done. Bravo on sharing the same brain.

[RandomGuy]

So then. You agree...

The science is not settled, like the alarmists say...

(shrugs)

As I said, I am content to do some moderate CO2 limiting things, especially since those limitations will benefit the economy, unlike what the economic alarmists say.

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to prove something that is very unlikely, but possible. Keep in mind, I never said this happened.

Every now and then, when a person plays video poker, a royal flush happens.

It is very unlikely, but possible.

You haven't even proved its possible.

Just because you say it is possible, doesn't make it so, no matter how hard you wish it to be, Cosmored.

[RandomGuy]

In the bigger picture, however, the data set I initially posted presents us with yet another instance where a fear-pandering prediction failed to stand up to the evidence. So what do you all do? Cry that "we're" ignoring "other new" evidence and studies (oh, how intellectually dishonest of us) - 'evidences" that are presented myopically from the start (given their frame of reference for the chosen period). The way I see it... until their predictions are valid, it's just more of the same agenda driven drivel.

That's pretty much what I think about the predictions of economic disaster from the "do nothing" crowd. Funny how the policy solution just "happens" to be favored by a trillion-dollar industry.

The kinds of modest limits on CO2 emissions, and investments in technology required to moderate what we are throwing into the air arguably benefits economies and standards of living.

That they might just avoid some rather substantial risks, is a pretty big bonus.

Really is a no-brainer from a policy and evidence standpoint, and we don't even need "settled" science, just a modest amount of evidence about the risks.

[Phenomanul]

That's pretty much what I think about the predictions of economic disaster from the "do nothing" crowd. Funny how the policy solution just "happens" to be favored by a trillion-dollar industry.

The kinds of modest limits on CO2 emissions, and investments in technology required to moderate what we are throwing into the air arguably benefits economies and standards of living.

That they might just avoid some rather substantial risks, is a pretty big bonus.

Really is a no-brainer from a policy and evidence standpoint, and we don't even need "settled" science, just a modest amount of evidence about the risks.

So you don't think that the ridiculous taxes that are levied on gasoline and diesel (on the end users - i.e. us the consumer) along with the billion dollar investments the refineries have to spend to live up to newer and ever changing regulations have any effect on the economy...? Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of automobiles has been dramatically shortened on account of newer gasoline blends (i.e. ethanol) destroying the engines. In the last two decades alone, more than 20 U.S. refiners have gone out of business. The folks making money are the oil-producers and they are not necessarily being regulated by the law of supply and demand (OPEC takes care of ensuring that this is the case as we've seen over the past 3 decades). The producers simply pass along any increases in operating expenses over to us.

Meanwhile in India and China refineries are being built left and right, and they couldn't care less about their emissions. If we all exist in the same global atmospheric system then why unilaterally target U.S/European economies all whilst elsewhere in the world pollution runs rampant at our expense.

I'm all for the regulation of Ozone, NOx, SOx, soot particulates and hydrocarbon emissions (i.e. methane, etc...) - due to their toxicity and other adverse effects (i.e. acid rain...). In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

[boutons_deux]

"China (refineries are being built left and right) and they couldn't care less about their emissions."

both countries, esp China, are realizing that pollution is a problem.

"offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change"

You Lie

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you don't think that the ridiculous taxes that are levied on gasoline and diesel (on the end users - i.e. us the consumer) along with the billion dollar investments the refineries have to spend to live up to newer and ever changing regulations have any effect on the economy...? Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of automobiles has been dramatically shortened on account of newer gasoline blends (i.e. ethanol) destroying the engines. In the last two decades alone, more than 20 U.S. refiners have gone out of business. The folks making money are the oil-producers and they are not necessarily being regulated by the law of supply and demand (OPEC takes care of ensuring that this is the case as we've seen over the past 3 decades). The producers simply pass along any increases in operating expenses over to us.

Meanwhile in India and China refineries are being built left and right, and they couldn't care less about their emissions. If we all exist in the same global atmospheric system then why unilaterally target U.S/European economies all whilst elsewhere in the world pollution runs rampant at our expense.

I'm all for the regulation of Ozone, NOx, SOx, soot particulates and hydrocarbon emissions (i.e. methane, etc...) - due to their toxicity and other adverse effects (i.e. acid rain...). In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

Are you really crying about the health of the US oil industry? Even through the heart of the recession the industry was still recording record profits. Even now with the price drop the only people that are seeing real harm are startups still holding a lot of debt. Between that and the subsidies for said innovations that you are talking about your argument has no teeth whatsoever. Poor oil magnates. . . .

And ending up with that corporate apologist nonsense. Yes, firms will pass on prices if they can but its not just this universal truth that you claim. If demand will not support the price then it falls right on its face. Ask Netflix. I would say that in the general sense, consumers making such overarching assumptions is against their self interest. It's tacit approval of the policy when public pressure obviously can have the opposite effect.

5 figure GOP types always make me laugh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

This is particularly ignorant. The oil lobby gave up on the warming drives CO2 angle a long time ago, chachi. Nobody in science argues that CO2 isn't a GHG anymore. Catch up with your overlords; they only argue scope of impacts now cause that is all that is unsettled. C

[Phenomanul]

Are you really crying about the health of the US oil industry? Even through the heart of the recession the industry was still recording record profits. Even now with the price drop the only people that are seeing real harm are startups still holding a lot of debt. Between that and the subsidies for said innovations that you are talking about your argument has no teeth whatsoever. Poor oil magnates. . . .

And ending up with that corporate apologist nonsense. Yes, firms will pass on prices if they can but its not just this universal truth that you claim. If demand will not support the price then it falls right on its face. Ask Netflix. I would say that in the general sense, consumers making such overarching assumptions is against their self interest. It's tacit approval of the policy when public pressure obviously can have the opposite effect.

5 figure GOP types always make me laugh.

Working with and directly for petroleum refineries... I can tell you that their operating and capital budgets have been slashed every time superfluous legislation hits their operation. It's a direct impact to the local economies they support, less employees, less overall work - not some wishy-washy hypothetical. I don't care about the oil magnates - they will stay wealthy no matter what... These type of initiatives directly and adversely affect the middle working classes; I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

So you don't think that the ridiculous taxes that are levied on gasoline and diesel (on the end users - i.e. us the consumer) along with the billion dollar investments the refineries have to spend to live up to newer and ever changing regulations have any effect on the economy...? Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of automobiles has been dramatically shortened on account of newer gasoline blends (i.e. ethanol) destroying the engines. In the last two decades alone, more than 20 U.S. refiners have gone out of business. The folks making money are the oil-producers and they are not necessarily being regulated by the law of supply and demand (OPEC takes care of ensuring that this is the case as we've seen over the past 3 decades). The producers simply pass along any increases in operating expenses over to us.

Meanwhile in India and China refineries are being built left and right, and they couldn't care less about their emissions. If we all exist in the same global atmospheric system then why unilaterally target U.S/European economies all whilst elsewhere in the world pollution runs rampant at our expense.

I'm all for the regulation of Ozone, NOx, SOx, soot particulates and hydrocarbon emissions (i.e. methane, etc...) - due to their toxicity and other adverse effects (i.e. acid rain...). In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

There you go again with that economic alarmism.

Feel free to present any evidence whatsoever of this potential catastrophic adverse affect on our economy, and please address the totality of negative externalities of oil production.

I think we subsidize oil production quite enough, though the negative externalities inherent in the production, storage, and usage of this rather dangerous product.

Not only will taxing CO2 emissions provide a net immediate benefit to our economy, creating high-tech, un-outsourcable jobs, abandoning this old tech, with its aging infrastructure, the jobs created by the readjustment of our economy to a more efficient and sustainable mixture of energy sources will make us far more compe ive.

If you can't show me economic harm from some settled economic sources, you should probably rethink your alarmist position.

[Phenomanul]

This is particularly ignorant. The oil lobby gave up on the warming drives CO2 angle a long time ago, chachi. Nobody in science argues that CO2 isn't a GHG anymore. Catch up with your overlords; they only argue scope of impacts now cause that is all that is unsettled. C

CO2 being a green-house gas was considered established science whenever we developed sensible enough instruments to validate/confirm Boltzmann-derrived emissivities and absorptivities (since the 1940s). That's never been the heart of the issue. Only you would throw out that red-herring argument to bolster the position that somehow CO2's anthropogenic impact is legitimized simply because the science behind the green-house effect is valid. Were that the case (using that logic), and as I've explained on many other occasions on this board, water vapor would have to be the most regulated pollutant.

1) because water vapor exists in much higher concentrations within our atmosphere (i.e visible concentrations [clouds and humidity]) - far unlike the 300-360 ppmv concentrations of CO2.

2) because it has a radiative forcing factor (NET positive absorbtivity) that is 50 times greater than that of CO2. Since water vapor can absorb and retain more solar energy it tends to increase its enthalpic state resulting in an increase of system temperature.

If not for the green house effect provided by our atmosphere this planet would have sub-zero temperatures throughout.

What's ignorant is your assumption that simply because we disagree, that somehow you're intellectually superior (it may, or may not be the case, but an assumption on that front is presumptuous at best... and immaterial at worst)... Have I called you stupid? Idiotic? No... why not extend the same courtesy then...?