AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[On Guard for Thee]

That desertification is primarily a result of issues such as overgrazing of land, overpopulation and poor land practices. Not as a result of climate change due to increased atmospheric CO2.

That's correct. I was responding to a post which tried to say the Sahara was reducing in it's size. But while we're at it, desertification adds to GW by removing the carbon sync.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's correct. I was responding to a post which tried to say the Sahara was reducing in it's size. But while we're at it, desertification adds to GW by removing the carbon sync.

I thought this thread was about climate change. We were talking about the effects of CO2 fertilization on the Sahara. The fact that Sahara is 'greened' as a result of CO2 fertilization is not somehow demerited by pointing out that human activity is causing desertification by other means. If you want to discuss the importance of overgrazing, overpopulation and poor agricultural practices causing desertification, fine. But don't purposely confuse it with the effects of CO2.

[On Guard for Thee]

I thought this thread was about climate change. We were talking about the effects of CO2 fertilization on the Sahara. The fact that Sahara is 'greened' as a result of CO2 fertilization is not somehow demerited by pointing out that human activity is causing desertification by other means. If you want to discuss the importance of overgrazing, overpopulation and poor agricultural practices causing desertification, fine. But don't purposely confuse it with the effects of CO2.

Yep, just another source of climate change, isn't it?

[On Guard for Thee]

Yep, just another source of climate change, isn't it?

You know, desertification, deforestation, two prominent culprits in climate change.

[-1=e^ipi]

You know, desertification, deforestation, two prominent culprits in climate change.

And that makes CO2 bad how?

[On Guard for Thee]

And that makes CO2 bad how?

Doesn't make it "bad", or good, it just brings more of it into the picture. It's always been here, just like H2O for that matter. If you melted all the water (that's always been here) that now sits frozen at the poles and in the mountains, we'd have a problem. Same if you unsequester all the CO2. Another big problem. We'd be better off with the water as it's not toxic, as long as you can keep on top of it.

[-1=e^ipi]

Doesn't make it "bad", or good, it just brings more of it into the picture

You're trying to ignore the greening effects of CO2 on the Sahara desert by bringing up desertification caused by other means. This is a red herring tactic.

It's always been here, just like H2O for that matter. If you melted all the water (that's always been here) that now sits frozen at the poles and in the mountains, we'd have a problem. Same if you unsequester all the CO2. Another big problem. We'd be better off with the water as it's not toxic, as long as you can keep on top of it.

Your understanding of basic chemistry remains bad.

1. the CO2 has not 'always been there'. In fact, your very action of breathing is helping to continue cellular respiration in your body that is creating CO2, water and energy from oxygen and sugar.

2. You can't melt water. Water is already a liquid.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to water being toxic. Are you preferring to 'water poisoning', more commonly know as drowning?

Edit: Misread what you said about water poisoning, my apologies.

Edited October 9, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Bonam]

You're trying to ignore the greening effects of CO2 on the Sahara desert by bringing up desertification caused by other means. This is a red herring tactic.

Your understanding of basic chemistry remains bad.

1. the CO2 has not 'always been there'. In fact, your very action of breathing is helping to continue cellular respiration in your body that is creating CO2, water and energy from oxygen and sugar.

2. You can't melt water. Water is already a liquid.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to water being toxic. Are you preferring to 'water poisoning', more commonly know as drowning?

He was clearly referring to melting water that "now sits frozen" (ice) and he clearly said that it's not toxic.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're trying to ignore the greening effects of CO2 on the Sahara desert by bringing up desertification caused by other means. This is a red herring tactic.

Your understanding of basic chemistry remains bad.

1. the CO2 has not 'always been there'. In fact, your very action of breathing is helping to continue cellular respiration in your body that is creating CO2, water and energy from oxygen and sugar.

2. You can't melt water. Water is already a liquid.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to water being toxic. Are you preferring to 'water poisoning', more commonly know as drowning?

You don't read well. I will admit though I did say melt water when I meant to say melt ice. I'd have thought you could have seen through that misnomer but since you didn't, ther you go. My apologies.

The CO2 just like the H2O has alwys een here and you don't produce it by breathing, you simply recycle what you took in by consumption and digestion which turns food into glucose that is turned into energy and the carbon mixes with oxygen etc as it's burned and you exhale that same CO2. I have no idea what you are talking about with water being toxic. I certainly did not indicate anything like that. Please re read the post maybe.

[Bonam]

The CO2 just like the H2O has alwys een here and you don't produce it by breathing, you simply recycle what you took in by consumption and digestion which turns food into glucose that is turned into energy and the carbon mixes with oxygen etc as it's burned and you exhale that same CO2. I have no idea what you are talking about with water being toxic. I certainly did not indicate anything like that. Please re read the post maybe.

You do produce the CO2 molecule in your body. Human metabolism takes basic organic molecules that contain C and H atoms and combine them (through a series of different metabolic pathways) with O2 molecules to produce CO2 and H2O molecules. The carbons atoms have of course "always been there" (since whenever they were created in stellar nucleosynthesis) but the CO2 molecules are newly produced in your body.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

He was clearly referring to melting water that "now sits frozen" (ice) and he clearly said that it's not toxic.

Sorry. It was late and I misread the sentence about poison. I apologize for the misrepresentation.

[Accountability Now]

You do produce the CO2 molecule in your body. Human metabolism takes basic organic molecules that contain C and H atoms and combine them (through a series of different metabolic pathways) with O2 molecules to produce CO2 and H2O molecules. The carbons atoms have of course "always been there" (since whenever they were created in stellar nucleosynthesis) but the CO2 molecules are newly produced in your body.

Don't bother. He doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the difference between a chemical reaction and changing states. I have tried to explain this to him and he's not having any.

CO2 is produced by humans. If we have 2 billion people on this earth versus 7 billion that means that we would have less CO2 production. Obviously that production pales in comparison to the CO2 being produced by burning fossil fuels but its still produced nonehtheless.

[waldo]

Don't bother. He doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the difference between a chemical reaction and changing states. I have tried to explain this to him and he's not having any.

CO2 is produced by humans. If we have 2 billion people on this earth versus 7 billion that means that we would have less CO2 production. Obviously that production pales in comparison to the CO2 being produced by burning fossil fuels but its still produced nonehtheless.

and you continue to struggle with the carbon cycle, natural sources and the fact the most (relatively) minimal production of CO2 'produced by humans' is not factored into emission inventories.

[waldo]

I thought this thread was about climate change. We were talking about the effects of CO2 fertilization on the Sahara.

no - the thread is not directly related to climate change... the thread is intended to showcase the mindset of fake-skeptics/deniers... like you. You persist in attempting to derail this thread over an assortment of topics. I keep asking you to take these attempts to appropriate threads where related discussion already exists (related discussion you've been involved in... related discussion that you've abandoned because you can't substantiate your opinions).

again, please take your want to re-open discussion on your unsubstantiated claim that CO2 fertilization will result in a global increase of crop yields... you know, your opinion based on your reliance upon non-real world, controlled, isolated greenhouse/hood enclosure studies.

as for your just claimed, "we were talking about the effects of CO2 fertilization on the Sahara"... who is we? That is you. Why not step forward (in that appropriate thread) and actually substantiate your claim as relates to this smallish, regional Sahel area. Why not start there... in the appropriate thread.

Edited October 9, 2014 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

and you continue to struggle with the carbon cycle, natural sources and the fact the most (relatively) minimal production of CO2 'produced by humans' is not factored into emission inventories.

WOW.....what did I just say in my post that YOU quoted. Here's a repeat for you buddy:

CO2 is produced by humans. If we have 2 billion people on this earth versus 7 billion that means that we would have less CO2 production. Obviously that production pales in comparison to the CO2 being produced by burning fossil fuels but its still produced nonehtheless.

I really put it bold and even the special part in red so you could read it. Are you that obtuse or just being totally belligerent to inflame the situation?

Carry on with your dishonesty waldingo. You are priceless.

[waldo]

WOW.....what did I just say in my post that YOU quoted. Here's a repeat for you buddy:

I really put it bold and even the special part in red so you could read it. Are you that obtuse or just being totally belligerent to inflame the situation?

Carry on with your dishonesty waldingo. You are priceless.

oh really! For something "so paling in comparison", you have a most significant number of posts on the subject... all presumptively attempting to makes something out of "the breathing impact of humans". Otherwise, if it's (relatively) insignificant, which it is, why bother yet again to push forward your repeated "2 billion versus 7 billion" reference... for something that "pales in comparison". But, of course, there is no comparison being made other than by you. Scientists aren't comparing... those responsible for creating and maintaining the global (by country) emissions inventories are comparing.

[Accountability Now]

oh really! For something "so paling in comparison", you have a most significant number of posts on the subject... all presumptively attempting to makes something out of "the breathing impact of humans". Otherwise, if it's (relatively) insignificant, which it is, why bother yet again to push forward your repeated "2 billion versus 7 billion" reference... for something that "pales in comparison". But, of course, there is no comparison being made other than by you. Scientists aren't comparing... those responsible for creating and maintaining the global (by country) emissions inventories are comparing.

Would 2 billion people produce less C02 than 7 billion people? Your response needs to be one word, either yes or no.

[waldo]

Would 2 billion people produce less C02 than 7 billion people? Your response needs to be one word, either yes or no.

given the limitation you've put me under... soWhat?

[Accountability Now]

given the limitation you've put me under... soWhat?

9 words and not a yes or no to be found. Go figure.

[waldo]

9 words and not a yes or no to be found. Go figure.

one word... YES or NO... and don't you dare write more than one word! Is there any signficance in you posturing over the fact/level of human 'produced' CO2?

[Accountability Now]

one word... YES or NO... and don't you dare write more than one word! Is there any signficance in you posturing over the fact/level of human 'produced' CO2?

Still waiting on your answer Mr Deflection.

[waldo]

Still waiting on your answer Mr Deflection.

you got what you'll get... sowhat? It has no bearing. Again, you fail to understand the carbon cycle and where natural sources fit within the cycle. Again, you fail to recognize/understand that natural sources are not included in emission tracking, emission inventories. Hence, sowhat!

I see your refusing to answer fits quite well... No Accountability Now!

[Accountability Now]

you got what you'll get... sowhat? It has no bearing. Again, you fail to understand the carbon cycle and where natural sources fit within the cycle. Again, you fail to recognize/understand that natural sources are not included in emission tracking, emission inventories. Hence, sowhat!

I see your refusing to answer fits quite well... No Accountability Now!

Yes or no waldo....do humans produce C02? This is a very simple question that your chronies say no to. Come on big guy answer the question without deflection, dishonesty or any of your other notorious traits.

[waldo]

Yes or no waldo....do humans produce C02? This is a very simple question that your chronies say no to. Come on big guy answer the question without deflection, dishonesty or any of your other notorious traits.

cronies? Through all your previous nonsense on this, I don't recall those "cronies" stating that. Does your absolute want to showcase just how obtuse you are, interpret my stating the human production of CO2 is insignificant... as stating humans DON'T produce it? Does your absolute want to showcase just how obtuse you are, interpret my stating the natural sourced human CO2 production is not included in emission inventories... as stating humans DON'T produce it?

again sowhat? Just what is the point you're nattering on about? Other than you perpetually fixate on insignificant and irrelevant points in an attempt to showcase just how you can derail/disrupt threads!

[Accountability Now]

cronies? Through all your previous nonsense on this, I don't recall those "cronies" stating that.

Here's a couple...

The comment that we produce cO2 by breathing has got to be one of the phoniest.

Breathing doesn't introduce one atom of new carbon into the atmosphere.

Really waldingo? Keep up a little before you emabarrass yourself. Ooops...too late.

Does your absolute want to showcase just how obtuse you are, interpret my stating the human production of CO2 is insignificant... as stating humans DON'T produce it?

I'm just waiting for you to say it. Do humans produce CO2...yes or no? Come on bud....as you always quote from your favorite movie....STEP UP.

I see you are in a conundrum here. Do you say YES and admit that your warming cronies were wrong thus showing how intelligent conversation is difficult on this matter when these people clearly don't understand the science and create the warmie mindset that we have all come to know. OR....do you say NO and make your warmies happy by joining in their absolute ignorance. Which is it?