Trump is everywhere, even on electronic forums..

 

@shortbus

Pretty funny. He would get the same treatment over here like all other over unity believers.

Past experience makes me doubt this.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

 

Seems the more credible news sources may have something to say against climate change credibility now too.

Forbes - Climate fakegate,

Forbes - What if the changes are determined to be natural after all?

Forbes - CO2 not doing what it's implied to be doing.

sciencedirect - Research Article.

 

Seems the more credible news sources may have something to say against climate change credibility now too.

Forbes - Climate fakegate,

Forbes - What if the changes are determined to be natural after all?

Forbes - CO2 not doing what it's implied to be doing.

sciencedirect - Research Article.

Can't be possible. The science is settled, no?

What about the 97%?

 

Can't be possible. The science is settled, no?

What about the 97%?

Well maybe 3% is settled. Its the other 97% that seems to be the sticking point of recurring contention. Especially with the side that has repeatedly shown they cant do basic math and be honest about their numbers and intent.

 

Seems the more credible news sources may have something to say against climate change credibility now too.

Forbes - Climate fakegate,

Forbes - What if the changes are determined to be natural after all?

Forbes - CO2 not doing what it's implied to be doing.

sciencedirect - Research Article.

While I am not a scientist, and write primarily on economics, tax policy and budget issues, I have been fascinated over the years by Heartland’s work on climate change

Another lawyer/writer
http://www.nationalreview.com/author/mario-loyola

Who knows:
http://www.texaspolicy.com/experts/detail/chuck-devore

Note where we are at in the cycle.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

All except the last one are just blogging.

 

Well, now we are all truly going to die, and soon! Everyone panic!

At least we know there is no amount of global taxation that will prevent our doom.

On the optimistic side: IMHO, when technology advances to the point that we can tap this carbon, humans will have a potentially unlimited source of energy. Granted, I don't know what form this carbon takes (the article only says "molten"). Is it molten pure carbon? Or compressed molten carbon dioxide or some other inert carbon compound?

 

The article glosses over the distinction between carbon and carbon dioxide. All that carbon would have to burn first. I think that much carbon burning in our atmosphere would cause more immediate problems than CO2 - like lack of oxygen and massive amounts of heat.

 

More bad science for political purposes.

Here is the source article.

 

The 97%.

Look up Cook (2013). He explains how he arrived at that figure.

It's a PR stunt ... To drive the belief that more scientists believe.

Cook's write-up is an excellent example of using search terms to fulfill the self-discipline prophecy.

Pay particular attention to the opening sentence in the introduction and conclusion.

 

The article glosses over the distinction between carbon and carbon dioxide. All that carbon would have to burn first. I think that much carbon burning in our atmosphere would cause more immediate problems than CO2 - like lack of oxygen and massive amounts of heat.

Yea, It needs some more detail. Pure carbon doesn't burn. CO2 would not normally be molten at high temperatures. Maybe high pressure?

 

Yea, It needs some more detail. Pure carbon doesn't burn. CO2 would not normally be molten at high temperatures. Maybe high pressure?

You tell me.

 

But it's not CO2, it's carbon, and it would have to suck up a lot of oxygen to burn and become CO2.

Pure carbon doesn't burn.

If you mean without oxygen, true. But it burns just fine in the presence of an oxidant. You can't light your wife's diamond ring on fire if you get it hot enough in the oven. (I'm not recommending that!)

 

I thought CO2 was carbon that HAD been "burned".

 

I thought CO2 was carbon that HAD been "burned".

It's exactly that. Oxidized would be the more precise term, since you can oxidize carbon to CO2 without technically burning it. That's what the enzymes in our body do – allow us to "burn" our food at low temperature by catalyzing the oxidation steps.

 

But it's not CO2, it's carbon, and it would have to suck up a lot of oxygen to burn and become CO2.
If you mean without oxygen, true. But it burns just fine in the presence of an oxidant. You can't light your wife's diamond ring on fire if you get it hot enough in the oven. (I'm not recommending that!)

I found this article.

A little bit better. In this case, it mentions "molten carbonates", which is a bit different than "molten carbon".

Since a carbonate ion consists of "oxidized" carbon (i.e. CO3--), I suspect it wouldn't be much use as a fuel.

 

I couldn't get to the original paper and these summaries use carbon and carbon dioxide almost interchangeably. Since the data is seismographic, I think the bottom line is that they don't know what the composition is, they just think there'a fluid layer there that has carbon in it. Hmmm...

 

...carbon and carbon dioxide almost interchangeably...

This is a symptom of our idiotic press and the greenie weenies who breathlessly consume it.

Just like the term "carbon footprint" -- technically, this should be "carbon dioxide footprint".

 

This is a symptom of our idiotic press and the greenie weenies who breathlessly consume it.

That's liberal science. The concept where scientific fact is democratically decided on (the more who believe in it the truer the fact becomes) not empirically proven.