Victor, Victor, Victor...

My assertion about the number of scientists that reject man-made client change is about as provable as your following statement:

"...but to be so certain that man-made climate change is a myth, based on what I'm gonna assume is a high-school level science education, when large numbers of scientists who have dedicated their life to the topic believe otherwise, simply because you're sure they're all trying to conspire against you... well that's some interesting hubris."

There were LOTS of Nazi scientists that had some very interesting views on Eugenics and racial profiles. Just because a lot of scientists dedicate their life to something doesn't mean that they are either knowledgable or correct. So, you can spin your BS they way you like, I can counter with just as much BS. Please, sell your snake oil somewhere else.

jpotts wrote:

And I LOVE this one:

"...because they can't demonstrate to you how C02 gets into the upper atmosphere, since it's denser than 02?"

You know, Victor, for someone with such a condescending attitude towards people with "high-school level" educations in science, you should know that there is a distinction between mass (weight) and density (weight and volume). I specified weight. You chose "density," which requires a specific volume.

....

But hey, if you want evidence about the number of climate change skeptics, here's a start:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html 

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Victor, you of all people should know better than to play this kind of game with me.

Face it, Victor, you've replaced a guy with a robe and staff as your prophet with some guy with a lab coat and a clipboard (and maybe a pcoet protector). But it is still the same kind of worship to a god you cannot see, hear, or touch. So you're no better than the people of faith you routinely mock.

BTW - another grade-school science kinda thing - most rocket propellants (fuels) are not O2-based. O2 is the oxidizer, the propellant (fuel) is generally something else like liquid Hydrogen (which is ALSO lighter than CO2).

But I'm sure that the best rocket fuel is made out of Owls.

An Teedubbya, your apology is accepted.

jpotts wrote:

And yes, CO2 is heavier than the surrounding air, with a molecular weight of around 44. O2 comes in around 32, N2 around 30, Ne around 20, and He around 4. The only thing in the earth's atmosphere that isn't heavier than CO2 it Krypton...and I don't see any scientists bleeding out their eyeballs about how man-made Krypton is causeing "climate change."

Granted, wind has something to do with the composition of the breathable portion of the atmosphere, which has more to do with the Sun than a coal-fired electricity turbine. But if no external factors were brought into play, then yes we would have an atmosphere that would exist in stratas, much like how oil and water seperates when mixed together in a bottle.

This whole "heavier than air" thing is the reason why they use dry ice in fog machines at those Justin Bieber concerts you regularly attend, Victor. It's also one of the reasons why you don't have a lot of stuff growing in the upper elevations of mountains, and why the atmosphere is so thin on the top of K2. Mainly because O2 molecules - you know, the stuff we breate? - cannot reach all that far up into the atmosphere...and therefore don't.

jpotts wrote:

I thought he was a dentist?

teedubbya wrote:

Well, he did IT for a dentists office once. So yeah... he fills cavities.

victor809 wrote:

somehow that isn't suprising

teedubbya wrote:

Is it getting hot in here? Must be that climate change.

daveincincy wrote:

No, really – if you put a monkey on a key board long enough . . . . . .

Brewha wrote: