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

[waldo]

No Accountability Now - sorry... there is no conumdrum, none whatsoever. I read the labeling of your nonsense "as phony" being factual! Your attempt to draw some significance to the impact of human breathing produced CO2... is phony! Your other attempt to falsely posture was answered by the related member's emphasis on the carbon cycle and how natural sources of carbon fit within that cycle. You know, the carbon cycle... that thingee you just can't grasp!

are you just about done derailing this thread?

[Accountability Now]

No Accountability Now - sorry... there is no conumdrum, none whatsoever. I read the labeling of your nonsense "as phony" being factual! Your attempt to draw some significance to the impact of human breathing produced CO2... is phony! Your other attempt to falsely posture was answered by the related member's emphasis on the carbon cycle and how natural sources of carbon fit within that cycle. You know, the carbon cycle... that thingee you just can't grasp!

are you just about done derailing this thread?

Thats what I thought waldingo. This conundrum is just too much for you to handle. You see the obvious error but the warmie mindset but instead of addressing it head on you choose to deflect as per your normal ways.

No derailing here...just showing the mindset as you asked in the OP. Can't handle that either I guess.

Ah well...this was fun.

[waldo]

you're deluded; I gave you my impression of your posturing over an insignificant and unrelated topic. Me and my cronies homies are consistent in showcasing your nonsense, in highlighting your fake-skeptic/denier mindset.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Yes they are, and then re-absorbed after they are exhaled on their way back through the "closed carbon cycle" which has a minimal effect vis a vis the stuff that comes out of Mt. Etna or your tail pipe.

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Accountability Now -

This conversation is one of the funniest I read i a while. These individuals can't even answer a basic question as to whether or not humans produce CO2 through cellular respiration, even when all the evidence is presented to them.

you're deluded;

Says the person who does not agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor...

Yes they are, and then re-absorbed after they are exhaled on their way back through the "closed carbon cycle" which has a minimal effect

Are you saying that humans reabsorb the CO2 after they exhale it?

[-1=e^ipi]

Alarmist Science:

When people breath, no CO2 is produced and released to the atmosphere. Or if it is it is reabsorbed right away.

When fossil fuels are burned, new Carbon is created.

Maybe this should be taught alongside young earth creationism in science class.

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

[waldo]

@ Accountability Now -

This conversation is one of the funniest I read i a while. These individuals can't even answer a basic question as to whether or not humans produce CO2 through cellular respiration, even when all the evidence is presented to them.

why are you so desperate to now outright fabricate... why are you so intent on continuing to derail this thread?

Says the person who does not agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor...

so you keep saying strawmaning! Yet another of your derail attempts. Other than showcasing your failed social experiment, other than highlighting you didn't even believe in your own posed hypothetical (ala your thread killing claim to "just kidding"), other than highlighting the idiocy behind your most selective, self-serving, nonsensical 'evolutionary based' question you posed as your immigration solution to prevent "islamists" from entering Canada, other than stating "if you believe in evolution, you believe in evolution"... as in the complete theory of evolution, not your nonsensical hypothetical isolation view on evolution, just what is you continue to natter on about humans/chimpanzees and what you strawman about my "agreement"?

[-1=e^ipi]

so you keep strawmaning!

I'm strawmaning you?

Okay Waldo, here is a simple science question since you cannot answer the one from Accountability Now:

Do humans and chimpanzees share an common ancestor that lived approximately 6 million years ago?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Wilber]

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Hmm.

[On Guard for Thee]

@ Accountability Now -

This conversation is one of the funniest I read i a while. These individuals can't even answer a basic question as to whether or not humans produce CO2 through cellular respiration, even when all the evidence is presented to them.

Says the person who does not agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor...

Are you saying that humans reabsorb the CO2 after they exhale it?

Nope. If you get that grade 5 science book out it will tell you that plants absorb CO2. We get it back by eating those plants.

[waldo]

I'm strawmaning you?

Okay Waldo, here is a simple science question since you cannot answer the one from Accountability Now:

Do humans and chimpanzees share an common ancestor that lived approximately 6 million years ago?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

again you persist in attempting to purposely derail this thread. How many times must you be asked before you stop? As I've repeatedly suggested, if you want to reopen discussion on this topic, please do so in the appropriate thread... do so following your thread ending post - here! Your thread ending post where you revealed your 'social experiment' you were running on your fellow MLW member 'lab rats'... where you said you were just kidding!

will you quit derailing this thread?... a simple yes or no will suffice?

[-1=e^ipi]

Nope. If you get that grade 5 science book out it will tell you that plants absorb CO2. We get it back by eating those plants.

Plants also absorb CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels. Do you think the plant cares as to whether or not the CO2 is from a human or from a car?

[-1=e^ipi]

Here Waldo, maybe this picture will help you:

[On Guard for Thee]

Plants also absorb CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels. Do you think the plant cares as to whether or not the CO2 is from a human or from a car?

Really, I suggest getting that old science book out and trying to absorb it like a plant absorbs CO2. I'll give you a hint though: the stuff coming from your car isn't in the "closed system" that science talks about. Look up the word "sequestered" and you might begin to see the CO2 light.

[waldo]

Here Waldo, maybe this picture will help you:

again, take it to the appropriate thread... your thread, your social experiment "I'm just kidding" thread. Again, quit derailing this thread. Is there a reason you refuse to post there what you're posting here?

[Bonam]

Really, I suggest getting that old science book out and trying to absorb it like a plant absorbs CO2. I'll give you a hint though: the stuff coming from your car isn't in the "closed system" that science talks about. Look up the word "sequestered" and you might begin to see the CO2 light.

Every carbon atom in the Earth's atmosphere has been breathed in and out by organisms countless times. It has existed as CO2 countless times, and as an organic molecule countless times, and in other forms. Each carbon atom in this cycle was created over 4.5 billion years ago in the cores of long-dead stars, whose remains are now thousands of light years away.

Science does not restrict itself to the study of closed systems only.

The amount of CO2 that plants can absorb does not depend on the source of the CO2 but on the amount of plants that exist and their efficiency in absorbing gaseous CO2 and performing chemical reactions in which the carbon atom is separated from the oxygen atoms and combined with other atoms, to form various organic molecules, where the carbon atoms are then locked ("sequestered") in a solid or liquid state. CO2 concentrations in the air can most certainly be affected by controlling these variables, just as much as they can be affected by emission of CO2. That is why (along with biomass decay) deforestation or ocean acidification can lead to higher CO2 concentrations in the air. But just as we can destroy plant life, we can also seed it, and that is certainly a valid technique in trying to control CO2 concentration.

Certainly any project that resulted in, as -1 mentions, the "greening of the Sahara", turning it into a tropical rainforest, would absorb an additional ~20 billion tonnes of carbon atoms per year, or about 75 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, roughly triple current human emissions. Of course, such a project would mostly consist of providing the needed amounts of fresh water to the Sahara desert, rather than the CO2 fertilization effect.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bonam

[Accountability Now]

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Hmm.

Great link. Sums up everything I have said. Humans DO produce CO2 but the amount they create pales in conparison to production from burning fossil fuels.

Glad to see you now agree that humans do produce it. Maybe there is hope for On Guard too? I know waldo is a lost cause but here's hoping!

[On Guard for Thee]

Great link. Sums up everything I have said. Humans DO produce CO2 but the amount they create pales in conparison to production from burning fossil fuels.

Glad to see you now agree that humans do produce it. Maybe there is hope for On Guard too? I know waldo is a lost cause but here's hoping!

Once again you just didn't get it.

[Accountability Now]

Once again you just didn't get it.

Lol. I guess there isn't hope for you.

[On Guard for Thee]

Lol. I guess there isn't hope for you.

Let me try to explain it another way. You consume water each day otherwise you will die. Where does that water end up? Every drop comes back out of you. You pee, you breathe and you sweat. Water all gone, every drop. Of course while that is going on you are continuing to drink and eat. An endless process. You do not produce one drop of H2O, you just recycle it, just like CO2.

[Bonam]

Let me try to explain it another way. You consume water each day otherwise you will die. Where does that water end up? Every drop comes back out of you. You pee, you breathe and you sweat. Water all gone, every drop. Of course while that is going on you are continuing to drink and eat. An endless process. You do not produce one drop of H2O, you just recycle it, just like CO2.

There's a difference.

H2O enters your body, H2O leaves your body, in roughly equal quantities.

But CO2 does not really enter your body, except in tiny amounts. The concentration of CO2 in the air you inhale is ~400ppm, and the concentration of CO2 in the air you exhale is ~40,000 ppm, about 100 times higher. What enters your body are organic molecules, like for example glucose C6H12O6. Your body breaks apart this molecule in a series of reactions releasing energy to power your body's activities and in the process creating CO2 molecules, which you then exhale. Much more CO2 leaves your body than enters it. This is true of all animals. There is a balance in terms of carbon atoms but not CO2 molecules, because chemical reactions happen in your body.

You are aware of what atoms and molecules are? What chemical reactions are? Right?

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bonam

[Accountability Now]

There's a difference.

H2O enters your body, H2O leaves your body, in roughly equal quantities.

But CO2 does not really enter your body, except in tiny amounts. The concentration of CO2 in the air you inhale is ~400ppm, and the concentration of CO2 in the air you exhale is ~40,000 ppm, about 100 times higher. What enters your body are organic molecules, like for example glucose C6H12O6. Your body breaks apart this molecule in a series of reactions releasing energy to power your body's activities and in the process creating CO2 molecules, which you then exhale. Much more CO2 leaves your body than enters it. This is true of all animals. There is a balance in terms of carbon atoms but not CO2 molecules, because chemical reactions happen in your body.

You are aware of what atoms and molecules are? What chemical reactions are? Right?

Lol. I explained this very thing to him. Even posted a picture of cellular respiration! He still doesn't get it. It's sad

[-1=e^ipi]

You do not produce one drop of H2O, you just recycle it, just like CO2.

... really? sigh....

Yeah you do, it's called cellular respiration. It's the exact same process that is producing that CO2 that you are so confused about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration

Really, I suggest getting that old science book out and trying to absorb it like a plant absorbs CO2. I'll give you a hint though: the stuff coming from your car isn't in the "closed system" that science talks about. Look up the word "sequestered" and you might begin to see the CO2 light.

How are you defining 'closed system'? Because it appears to me that you are arbitrarily defining a closed system that does not contain 'stuff from your car' and then declaring because 'stuff from your car' isn't part of the arbitrarily defined closed system, it must be bad. In the context of thermodynamics, the Earth isn't a closed system otherwise entropy couldn't be decreasing on earth and life couldn't exist. But most likely you are talking about the carbon cycle. If so, excluding underground carbon makes zero sense because carbon naturally moves from under the ground to the atmosphere and back through geological processes.

[-1=e^ipi]

again, take it to the appropriate thread... your thread

So if I make a new thread, you will explain why you disagree with humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor?

[On Guard for Thee]

There's a difference.

H2O enters your body, H2O leaves your body, in roughly equal quantities.

But CO2 does not really enter your body, except in tiny amounts. The concentration of CO2 in the air you inhale is ~400ppm, and the concentration of CO2 in the air you exhale is ~40,000 ppm, about 100 times higher. What enters your body are organic molecules, like for example glucose C6H12O6. Your body breaks apart this molecule in a series of reactions releasing energy to power your body's activities and in the process creating CO2 molecules, which you then exhale. Much more CO2 leaves your body than enters it. This is true of all animals. There is a balance in terms of carbon atoms but not CO2 molecules, because chemical reactions happen in your body.

You are aware of what atoms and molecules are? What chemical reactions are? Right?

Not roughly equal quantities.