+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 260
  1. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Roy is pretty funny, check out these quotes:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

    My personal fave-
    Roy:
    "It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem."
    Science says:
    By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
    Hilarious. Skeptical science doesn't really do science very well do they? Maybe you should wikipedia what actually happens when we breathe.

    ETA: Did you even read where that quote came from? Maybe you should read that article too, rather than just quoting blindly from SkepticalScience.

    BTW, I agree with all of those comments, with the possible exception of 4th one, but I can't watch the video at the moment to get it in context. It seems an interesting comment in it's edited form.

    Any other comments of his you would like to argue?
    Last edited by Father; 16-10-2013 at 22:40.

  2. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Hilarious. Skeptical science doesn't really do science very well do they? Maybe you should wikipedia what actually happens when we breathe.
    If you'd gone to the site itself and clicked the hyperlink, you'd have found a more detailed explanation. Here, I'll paste it for you:

    Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    "Pollution; none of us are supporting putting substances into the atmosphere or the waterways that might be pollutants, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat. So that is absolute nonsense." (Ian Plimer)
    The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact.

    It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"

    This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

    These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

    Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line - and a good thing, too!

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    HollyGolightly81  (17-10-2013),sockstealingpoltergeist  (17-10-2013)

  4. #233
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I would hardly say 'well known'. I have followed him for quite some time and have not heard him mention his Biblical beliefs once. It seems the first thing you do when an opinion is stated is go straight to google and talk about something else as an ad hom attack.

    So, the relevance of this to climate change is? Would NASA employ someone in such a high position that they did not feel was appropriately qualified?
    Well, it was the first thing I thought of when I saw his name. You haven't heard him mention it? How often do you guys hang? What would NASA do? I have no idea. I assume they feel his other credentials outweigh his publicly declared belief in intelligent design over evolution. I don't, but then, I'm not hiring him. A scientist who repudiates widely held beliefs without actual evidence to support his claims loses credibility in my eyes. But to each their own, of course, Father. Carry on.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (17-10-2013)

  6. #234
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Hilarious. Skeptical science doesn't really do science very well do they? Maybe you should wikipedia what actually happens when we breathe.

    ETA: Did you even read where that quote came from? Maybe you should read that article too, rather than just quoting blindly from SkepticalScience.

    BTW, I agree with all of those comments, with the possible exception of 4th one, but I can't watch the video at the moment to get it in context. It seems an interesting comment in it's edited form.

    Any other comments of his you would like to argue?
    Hahahahahahahahahaha. No, not with you. Thanks for the laughs!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (17-10-2013)

  8. #235
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Roy Spencer hasn't actually been employed by NASA since 2001. He's the team leader of their Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Aqua satellite and he's does research for them, but I assume NASA funds research from many scientists--as you know I'm sure they value all angles of research. But hmmm...after all that research they still declare global warming is happening and man made and dangerous!
    Last edited by Kirst33; 17-10-2013 at 07:29.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (17-10-2013)

  10. #236
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Have a click through on the menu of NASA's climate website, they strongly support the IPCC's findings.

    http://climate.nasa.gov

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (19-10-2013)

  12. #237
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Oh, haha. That is GOLD!

    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    As in, well known creationist, Roy Spencer?

    Quote from his wiki entry-
    Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[24][25] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[26] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[27]

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (18-10-2013)

  14. #238
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Hilarious. Skeptical science doesn't really do science very well do they? Maybe you should wikipedia what actually happens when we breathe.
    They do science better than you though, you know, on account of them being actual scientists, unlike you.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (18-10-2013),sockstealingpoltergeist  (17-10-2013)

  16. #239
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Hahahahahahahahahaha. No, not with you. Thanks for the laughs!
    Arguing with Father about climate change, is like arguing the theory of evolution with a creationist. Coincidence??

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (18-10-2013),sockstealingpoltergeist  (17-10-2013)

  18. #240
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    6,694
    Thanks
    1,185
    Thanked
    3,209
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Climate change skeptics are attention seekers. Rant over.


    Mummy of Max 2 from donor eggs from my lovely sister.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lilypily For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (18-10-2013),beebs  (18-10-2013),Kirst33  (18-10-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. E Tax - Where am I going wrong??
    By Mokeybear in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 19:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Softer than your bub's bum Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Australia's favourite eco brand has delivered a gorgeous baby collection. Made from organic bamboo, Boody's extraordinarily soft and stretchy, skin-friendly tops, bottoms, onesies, bibs and wraps don't 'cost the earth'. Get 20% OFF! Code BUBHUB16.
sales & new stuffsee all
CarmelsBeautySecrets
Growing your own natural nails is easy. Years ago, I devised a simple and very effective technique which really helps boosts the nails' growth in as little as three days! And most importantly keeps them that way.
featured supporter
Swim Australia
Swim Australia are the leading learn-to-swim experts, and national swim school authority. With over 600 Registered Swim Schools located across the country, through our aquatic education, we aim to build a Safer, Smarter, Stronger nation of swimmers.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!