The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

[Renae]

The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
The dubious science of the climate crusaders.
William Happer
The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)—a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
Article | First Things

An excellent read for anyone interested in the whole debate. I highly recommend it.

 

[Deuce]

A well written article, but it really just boils down to the usual talking points in a giant list
-CO2 was higher in the past, therefore higher CO2 is not bad
-Plants need CO2, therefore higher CO2 is not bad
-We breathe out CO2, therefore higher CO2 is not bad
-Straw man: the idea that AGW proponents think there's no such thing as "too little" CO2
-Straw man: The idea that the CO2-temperature link was established purely by correlation
-CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record, therefore CO2 cannot cause temperature changes
-Standard "medieval warm period was rewritten with hockey stick" disproven talking point (laughable: "there was no explanation of why both the MWP and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later. :lol: )
-CLIMATEGATE CLIMATEGATE CLIMATEGATE

All of these have been discussed ad nauseum. It's a severe failure of logic to think that just because the earth has historically been warmer, or had higher CO2 levels, that this necessarily means it's not a problem for us. We are not dinosaurs. Our food crops are not adapted to the same environment that plants in the Jurassic period were adapted to. Animals today are not adapted to that environment, and we really like to eat animals. There's also nearly 7 billion of us now, and feeding that many people requires relying on artificial means to produce food.

The "ideal" environment for humanity is whatever environment our food sources are best adapted to. Changing that environment faster than those food sources could adapt is a problem.

 

[Renae]

A well written article, but it really just boils down to the usual talking points in a giant list
-CO2 was higher in the past, therefore higher CO2 is not bad
-Plants need CO2, therefore higher CO2 is not bad
-We breathe out CO2, therefore higher CO2 is not bad
-Straw man: the idea that AGW proponents think there's no such thing as "too little" CO2
-Straw man: The idea that the CO2-temperature link was established purely by correlation
-CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record, therefore CO2 cannot cause temperature changes
-Standard "medieval warm period was rewritten with hockey stick" disproven talking point (laughable: "there was no explanation of why both the MWP and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later. :lol: )
-CLIMATEGATE CLIMATEGATE CLIMATEGATE

All of these have been discussed ad nauseum. It's a severe failure of logic to think that just because the earth has historically been warmer, or had higher CO2 levels, that this necessarily means it's not a problem for us. We are not dinosaurs. Our food crops are not adapted to the same environment that plants in the Jurassic period were adapted to. Animals today are not adapted to that environment, and we really like to eat animals. There's also nearly 7 billion of us now, and feeding that many people requires relying on artificial means to produce food.

The "ideal" environment for humanity is whatever environment our food sources are best adapted to. Changing that environment faster than those food sources could adapt is a problem.

Translation:

I cannot debate this point, so I shall do the usual try to dismiss it as being all ready "settled". I have no desire or ability to discuss AGW except in terms of "It is REAL and MAN needs to be punished for destroying Mother Giai so says the High Lord algore."

You cannot dismiss reality, you can only push the lies Deuce. And that is what you are, a purveyor of lies, political dogma and shoddy science. It's sad to watch really.

 

[Deuce]

Translation:

I cannot debate this point, so I shall do the usual try to dismiss it as being all ready "settled". I have no desire or ability to discuss AGW except in terms of "It is REAL and MAN needs to be punished for destroying Mother Giai so says the High Lord algore."

You cannot dismiss reality, you can only push the lies Deuce. And that is what you are, a purveyor of lies, political dogma and shoddy science. It's sad to watch really.

Which point, exactly, should I debate? You haven't made any. Which aspect of reality would you like to talk about? You seem to have been so busy being smug that you forgot that you didn't add any of your own commentary in the OP.

 

[DemonMyst]

Thanks to Global warming, Canada, the U.S., and Russia are negotiating shipping lanes over the north pole..

So?? What melts ice?? Anyone?? Anyone?? Heat.. Alaska's perma frost is melting.. What melts ice again?? Heat..

There is just a small portion of the observable evidence.. The great barrier reef is dying due to the ocean heating up.. Increased storm activity and severity is also a cause of our planet heating up.. All the tornados, the flodding, the Hurricanes, the Typhoons, the massive winter storms.. Global warming will effect all of our planets weather.. Yes, winter will be worse.. But they will become shorter..

Pretty soon.. The only place you will be able to see him is in a zoo.. Without the polar ice, he has no home..

There is the Greenland ice melting.. What melts ice again?? Anyone?? Heat!! Greenland ice is something we really need to worry about.. It will raise the sea level as it isn't already in the ocean.. Like the ice of the North Pole.. That is already in water so it will have no effect.. But any glacier that is on land and melts, will raise sea level..

So if you want the real truth about Global warming.. Stick to what you can see with your own eyes..

*Alaska permafrost thawing, Siberia frozen peat bogs melting, Large increase in Arctic seabed methane, Arctic Yedoma releasing hot spots of bubbling*methane ***The WE News Archives******

There is a website that talks about Methane Hydrates and why we need to worry about those.. The permafrost melting in Both Alaska and Syberia.. Not to mention a bunch of other information..

Now we can talk about CO2 levels all you want.. But CO2 isn't the only problem nor is it the only greenhouse gas.. Right now our oceans are heating because Polar ice caps are much smaller.. Ice reflects sun light.. Without ice, the ocean warms.. Methane hydrates are melting.. The ocean is leaking methane because it is slowly warming.. These are all things that we can't control.. So no offense.. You article is a little out dated and moot to begin with..

 

[mbig]

Which point, exactly, should I debate? You haven't made any. Which aspect of reality would you like to talk about? You seem to have been so busy being smug that you forgot that you didn't add any of your own commentary in the OP.

Normally mere link-knocking/discounting, without tackling any of the content, is not good practice IMO.
But it should be brought up now in light of the fact he fanned on debate/content utterly -- and at some point anyway.

"Article | First Things"
firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
An excellent read for anyone interested in the whole debate. I highly recommend it.

About Us: Masthead | First Things

First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.
Editor: R.R. Reno

R. R. Reno

Biographical Information

R. R. Reno is an associate professor of theology at Creighton University. In addition to 'In the Ruins of the Church', he is also author of 'Redemptive Change: Atonement and the Christian Cure of the Soul' (Trinity Press International, 2002). His shorter works have been published in First Things and 'Pro Ecclesia'.
R. R. Reno Discusses the "Re"unification of Truth and Theology

 

[Deuce]

Despite the religious source I'd be happy to debate some topic if only he'd actually provide one.

 

[Renae]

Despite the religious source I'd be happy to debate some topic if only he'd actually provide one.

You don't want to debate squat. You just rehash the same, tired AGW BS, claim anything that shows otherwise to be "Big Oil" or just "wrong" and waste our time.

There is a reason I rarely bother posting down here in this forum anymore, one can only tlak ot a brick wall for so long before it become boring.


HOWEVER.


Let's just put you to the Test Deuce.

Truth or Fiction:

Climate Changes.


Man has only been recording, with scientific instruments for what? 150 or so years.


Greenland was once actually Green, arable land that was settled by the Vikings, those areas are now under glaciers and permafrost.

There was a Midevil Warm Period.

There was a little ice age that followed the MWP.

CO2 Concentrations have been, as to the best of our science to determine, far higher (like over 1000ppm) in the past.

Man's contribution towards the rising detected levels of CO2 are less then WHAT percent of of the total atmospheric gas make up?

 

[Deuce]

Let's just put you to the Test Deuce.

Truth or Fiction:

Climate Changes.

True.

Man has only been recording, with scientific instruments for what? 150 or so years.

Temperature proxies go back farther than this. Thermometer records go back ~150 years.

Greenland was once actually Green, arable land that was settled by the Vikings, those areas are now under glaciers and permafrost.

There was a Midevil Warm Period.

There was a little ice age that followed the MWP.

Yes, but not as pronounced as most skeptics claim. The MWP was largely a regional effect, which is why Greenland was green. An early "proof of concept" temperature proxy was done which showed that very pronounced MWP hump. You've seen it before, I'm sure:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anti-hockey-stick-image.jpg

But skeptics don't bother to tell you that this graph was created in a small data set as a test, and the data was confined almost entirely to the UK, and all of the data was from the Greenland/Iceland/Northern Europe. This same methodology was later expanded to a global dataset, and that brought us the now infamous hockey stick. The MWP is still there, as is the little ice age, but they are less pronounced once you factor in global data instead of just regional data.

CO2 Concentrations have been, as to the best of our science to determine, far higher (like over 1000ppm) in the past.

Man's contribution towards the rising detected levels of CO2 are less then WHAT percent of of the total atmospheric gas make up?

CO2 is currently around 390ppm, and has increased about 40% since pre-industrial levels primarily to human activity.


You brought up these points, MrV, why don't you tell me what you think they prove?

 

[Renae]

True.

Temperature proxies go back farther than this. Thermometer records go back ~150 years.


Yes, but not as pronounced as most skeptics claim. The MWP was largely a regional effect, which is why Greenland was green. An early "proof of concept" temperature proxy was done which showed that very pronounced MWP hump. You've seen it before, I'm sure:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anti-hockey-stick-image.jpg

But skeptics don't bother to tell you that this graph was created in a small data set as a test, and the data was confined almost entirely to the UK, and all of the data was from the Greenland/Iceland/Northern Europe. This same methodology was later expanded to a global dataset, and that brought us the now infamous hockey stick. The MWP is still there, as is the little ice age, but they are less pronounced once you factor in global data instead of just regional data.



CO2 is currently around 390ppm, and has increased about 40% since pre-industrial levels primarily to human activity.


You brought up these points, MrV, why don't you tell me what you think they prove?

I wanted to see your answers. That you're still using the hockey stick as a selling point, after it's been shown to be statistically an anomaly, created not from science but to display a result...

Also, I didn't ask how much it's risen(CO2) percentage wise, I asked

Man's contribution towards the rising detected levels of CO2 are less then WHAT percent of of the total atmospheric gas make up?

I.E. what percent of the atmosphere is CO2?

In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387% by volume, or 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv).[1][6] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins and reach a minimum in October when the quantity of biomass undergoing photosynthesis is greatest.[7

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0.0387% of the ENTIRE VOLUME of the Earths Atmosphere!

Now, I'm just using this link, feel free to find a better answer if you will but they lay out the math if you wish to refute it.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

A little over 17 and a quarter trillion cubic kilometres.

The atmosphere extends to the far reaches of the exosphere which is 10,000km above the earth.

Ignoring the volume occupied by Earth for the time being...

The diameter of the exosphere is therefore 10,000 + 10,000 + 12720 (diameter of the earth) = 32720km. The radius is therefore 16360km.

The volume is four thirds multipled by pi multiplied by the radius cubed (4/3 π 16360³) = 18,341,650,640,000 km³

Less the volume of Earth occupied by Earth. (4/3 π 6360³) = 1,077,605,665,000km³

18,341,650,640,000 - 1,077,605,665,000 = 17,264,044,985,000km³

What is the specific volume of the entire atmosphere of planet Earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Think about this for a minute everyone.

0.0387% of 17,264,044,985,000km³ is going to cause the Earth to over heat, oceans to rise, birds to fry, ice caps to melt...

Unless of course we follow very costly, politically driven solutions that effectively shred all notions of National Sovereignty.

Oh and the people pushing it will get VERY VERY rich in the process.


But never mind the politics, CO2, a gas we have proof in the historic measures you so adore, of CO2 levels being WELL IN EXCESS of 1000PPM, and the Earth did not end. No man was polluting, no Government was changed, no lives ruined or enriched...

0.0387%

Of a mass of air so great, the actual numbers are theoretical abstracts that few people can comprehend.


Which is more LIKELY, that a natural compound, essential for pretty much all life on Earth, is behind Climate Change; or that natural forces like the wibbly wobbly nature of the Earths Orbit, solar output and the like are responsible?

How likely is it that these folks pushing "AGW" are really just trying to save us from ourselves, or is there another more likely personal gain/agenda at play?


Here's the thing Deuce, I use common sense, personal training and experience in the field; you use politics and emotion. You have never stopped once to say "Is this real"?

I have, I seriously looked into AGW as being a legitimate threat. But the more I dig, the more the layers expose, the more political the affair is. Man isn't causing Climate Change, and Government Decrees won't save us.

 

[Deuce]

Think about this for a minute everyone.

0.0387% of 17,264,044,985,000km³ is going to cause the Earth to over heat, oceans to rise, birds to fry, ice caps to melt...

Unless of course we follow very costly, politically driven solutions that effectively shred all notions of National Sovereignty.

Oh and the people pushing it will get VERY VERY rich in the process.


But never mind the politics, CO2, a gas we have proof in the historic measures you so adore, of CO2 levels being WELL IN EXCESS of 1000PPM, and the Earth did not end. No man was polluting, no Government was changed, no lives ruined or enriched...

0.0387%

Of a mass of air so great, the actual numbers are theoretical abstracts that few people can comprehend.


Which is more LIKELY, that a natural compound, essential for pretty much all life on Earth, is behind Climate Change; or that natural forces like the wibbly wobbly nature of the Earths Orbit, solar output and the like are responsible?

How likely is it that these folks pushing "AGW" are really just trying to save us from ourselves, or is there another more likely personal gain/agenda at play?


Here's the thing Deuce, I use common sense, personal training and experience in the field; you use politics and emotion. You have never stopped once to say "Is this real"?

I have, I seriously looked into AGW as being a legitimate threat. But the more I dig, the more the layers expose, the more political the affair is. Man isn't causing Climate Change, and Government Decrees won't save us.

It is absolutely hilarious that you claim to be using "common sense" while I am using emotion and politics. What's your basis for saying a small amount of CO2 wouldn't have an effect? "Common sense." AKA your gut. It doesn't seem like it should work that way! Then you go ahead and head to the usual gross inflation of the claims. "Fry birds."


Find me one single link that said birds would fry.

Then you go and talk about a vague conspiracy about some people possibly getting rich. That's your idea of scientific evidence?

Let me ask you a question. Can you calculate how much total energy would be absorbed by increasing CO2 levels in a given amount of atmosphere with a given solar input? Are you at all qualified to determine the radiative forcing of a greenhouse gas?

P.S. Earth didn't "end," no. Nobody has ever claimed the Earth will "end." At least until the end of the sun's lifespan! Nor does any scientific organization even suggest that mankind will go extinct. Do you want an actual debate or are you going to continue with straw men? I can do that too, you know.

 

[Barbbtx]

This sounds reasonable to me and written in simple language I can understand.

Popular Technology.net: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually plant food. They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life. Thus regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes', 'Cap and Trade' or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.

 

[mbig]

This sounds reasonable to me and written in simple language I can understand.

We just had a whole string based on that same FALLACY. LCD. Lowest common denominator being the barrier to believe or not believe something is true or not.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...ientific-proof-not-just-educated-guesses.html

In order to prove scientific discoveries and functions, they must be demonstrated so that everyone can relate with them, not just other scientists who belong to the exclusive club. Most scientific discoveries of note can be proven this way, but there far too many God-like scientists out there who think their word is enough proof. Far to many educated guessers who don't use the words THEORY, POSSIBILITY, or SUPPOSITION anymore.

ricksfolly

[ur l - populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html]Popular Technology.net: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution[/url]

This is a Wack Job Blog run by 4 ostensible computer engineers (NOT climatolgists or scientologists)
who just go by their first names!

Andrew, the editor
Doug
Karl
Mike

Here's some more of Andrew's anti-establishment, Conspiratorial ideas.
Popular Technology -> The Sciences
Including the absurd... HIV doesn't cause AIDS.. among with countless other floaters.

Tho called populartechnology.net it's a Conspiracy website more in line with 'whatreallyhappened' etc.
A Clearing house for Nut bag ideas.
PopulISTtechnology would be closer, but still impart a technical expertise these Clowns don't have.

 

[Poptech]

Here's some more of Andrew's anti-establishment, Conspiratorial ideas. ...Including the absurd... HIV doesn't cause AIDS.. among with countless other floaters.

Countless? Is that why you could only find one you consider as such? A forum post no-less (which is not the blog - you are computer literate I hope) that I compiled to see what evidence existed relating to the HIV-AIDS and co-factors controversy, including the 44 peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals challenging various aspects of the theory? I hold no personal position on the issue but was simply researching the evidence challenging it. Is it illegal to compile such information? Let me know when you get a clue.

Tho called populartechnology.net it's a Conspiracy website more in line with 'whatreallyhappened' etc.

Is it really?

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

From the forums,

Debunking Crop Circles
Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories
Debunking 2012
Debunking JFK Conspiracies

Talk about "countless" posts DEBUNKING conspiracy theories. :lol:

 

[Poptech]

NOT climatolgists

You seem to really not know what you are talking about so lets see if you can do this for me,

Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

 

[Poptech]

Just an FYI, my other post that complete embarrasses your nonsense conspiracy claims about my site is held up in the moderator que

1. You don't know the difference between a forum and a blog - a sign of a computer illiterate.
2. You didn't search the blog or the forums very well.

Both rather embarrassing.

 

[Deuce]

This sounds reasonable to me and written in simple language I can understand.

Popular Technology.net: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

The ocean acidification issue is basically Chemistry 101.
H2O + CO2 ->H2CO3 (carbon dioxide + water to carbonic acid)
H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3- (hydrogen ions and bicarbonate)

The increase in hydrogen ions increases the acidity of the ocean.

Regarding the greenhouse effect, which is the actual topic of climate change discussions: CO2 is not talked about as a pollutant in the sense of its toxicity. Nobody is suggesting that there's going to be breathing problems based on too much CO2. The CO2 emissions required to produce that scenario are astronomical. Rather, CO2 is described as a pollutant because of a different unwanted side-effect: increasing the greenhouse effect.
If you're looking for something in language you can understand:
YouTube - ‪A Climate Minute - The Greenhouse Effect‬‏
The 1:40 version of what's happening. The slightly longer version: CO2, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases, absorb the earth's outgoing radiation which is in the longwave infrared spectrum. This is well-established - it was first discovered in the 1800's and the Air Force did a tremendous amount of research on this because their heat-seeking missiles work in this wavelength. This energy is absorbed and reflected in all directions, including back down to earth. This extra radiation keeps the planet a little warmer. (it's "extra" because without the greenhouse effect this radiation would have just escaped directly to space unimpeded)

Barb, I know you aren't big on all the sciencey stuff, but you have to understand that the arbiter of a scientific topic is not going to be how well the average person can understand it. When your argument basically boils down to "I don't understand the science therefore I'm going to just ignore it," people aren't going to take your argument very seriously.

 

[mbig]

You seem to really not know what you are talking about so lets see if you can do this for me,

Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

I would think anyone who has studied the issue or related ones directly and had papers published on the topic:
ie,
List of climate scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's certainly NOT four Bloggers who go by only their first name, Not willing to even be Identified with their work.
Speaking of embarrassed/embarrassing!

Just an FYI, my other post that complete embarrasses your nonsense conspiracy claims about my site is held up in the moderator que.

1. You don't know the difference between a forum and a blog - a sign of a computer illiterate.

Apparently my Offensive friend, you didn't even go to their/Your? BLOG, which IS a Blog (with Blog entries) to anyone with vision, much less a millimeter of internet knowledge.

Popular Technology.net\ ---- On the top Right--- "Search this Blog"

In did post their (Your?) 'forum' as well, but all entries on that joke of a 'forum' (as a Blog) were by ONE person even if in a faux format.

2. You didn't search the blog or the forums very well.

Both rather embarrassing.

You clearly are a very upset partisan who resents having a site (probably your site) outed, and doesn't know what a blog is, even when it is SELF-described.

 

[Poptech]

I would think anyone who has studied the issue or related ones directly and had papers published on the topic:

Then all the scientists on this list are climate scientists.

List of climate scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only computer illiterates cite Wikipedia.

It's certainly NOT four Bloggers who go by only their first name, Not willing to even be Identified with their work.

Strawman, can you show where the claim is made that they are climate scientists?

Apparently my Offensive friend, you didn't even go to their/Your? BLOG, which IS a Blog (with Blog entries) to anyone with vision, much less a millimeter of internet knowledge.

Popular Technology.net\ ---- On the top Right--- "Search this Blog"

What does that have to do with you confusing a forum post with a blog? Search the site, none of the forum posts come up in it because a forum is not a blog but this requires computer literacy (something you lack) to understand.

In did post their (Your?) 'forum' as well, but all entries on that joke of a 'forum' (as a Blog) were by ONE person even if in a faux format.

Clearly you did not as I pointed out rather embarrassingly above.

You clearly are a very upset partisan who resents having a site (probably your site) outed, and doesn't know what a blog is, even when it is SELF-described.

I am well aware of what a blog is and it is not an Internet forum, your confusion of the two is embarrassing.

Blog - Popular Technology.net
Forum - Popular Technology

They are not the same thing and only a computer illiterate such as yourself would confuse the two. Let me know when you need an education in other areas as well.

 

[mbig]

Only computer illiterates cite Wikipedia.

On the contrary. That's the starting point for most unless, like you, someone wants to foist the One-sided counterculture/wack-job Garbage your Blog does.
(such as articles claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS)

What does that have to do with you confusing a forum post with a blog? Search the site, none of the forum posts come up in it because a forum is not a blog but this requires computer literacy (something you lack) to understand.

As I pointed out Your Megalomania makes your 'forum' effectively a blog.
The same Megalomania/Paranoia (probably RSS feed) that apparently compels you to 'pop' up about 8 hours after being mentioned anywhere.
As in your 4 attempts at posts here. Incl one in February.
Right on time tonight too.

WAIT! I think some poster in Bulgaria mentioned your site in -- GET over there!
Because if he's got a brain he'll be contradicting it too.

Clearly you did not as I pointed out rather embarrassingly above.

Searching your handle with just about any sci Topic leaves a really ugly, stupefying, and Laughable trail.
If you really want anonymity You should get more net savy. (take it from someone with superior search skills)

I am well aware of what a blog is and it is not an Internet forum, your confusion of the two is embarrassing.

Blog - Bopular Technology.net
Forum - Bopular Technology

They are not the same thing and only a computer illiterate such as yourself would confuse the two. Let me know when you need an education in other areas as well.

(note: I modified your links above, for better name accuracy and so as not to advertise your Conspiracy site, and make it more diffiCult for your RSS feed to find. Yeah, "computer illiterate")
And as I pointed out Goofy, the way you do it/ALONE they are very close to the same thing.
That's my point and I already answered it.
A one-man forum is effectively a Blog.... POPTART.

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier Lies « Greenfyre’s

and so much more.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Thanks to Global warming, Canada, the U.S., and Russia are negotiating shipping lanes over the north pole..

So?? What melts ice?? Anyone?? Anyone?? Heat.. Alaska's perma frost is melting.. What melts ice again?? Heat..

There is just a small portion of the observable evidence.. The great barrier reef is dying due to the ocean heating up.. Increased storm activity and severity is also a cause of our planet heating up.. All the tornados, the flodding, the Hurricanes, the Typhoons, the massive winter storms.. Global warming will effect all of our planets weather.. Yes, winter will be worse.. But they will become shorter..

Pretty soon.. The only place you will be able to see him is in a zoo.. Without the polar ice, he has no home..

There is the Greenland ice melting.. What melts ice again?? Anyone?? Heat!! Greenland ice is something we really need to worry about.. It will raise the sea level as it isn't already in the ocean.. Like the ice of the North Pole.. That is already in water so it will have no effect.. But any glacier that is on land and melts, will raise sea level..

So if you want the real truth about Global warming.. Stick to what you can see with your own eyes..

*Alaska permafrost thawing, Siberia frozen peat bogs melting, Large increase in Arctic seabed methane, Arctic Yedoma releasing hot spots of bubbling*methane ***The WE News Archives******

There is a website that talks about Methane Hydrates and why we need to worry about those.. The permafrost melting in Both Alaska and Syberia.. Not to mention a bunch of other information..

Now we can talk about CO2 levels all you want.. But CO2 isn't the only problem nor is it the only greenhouse gas.. Right now our oceans are heating because Polar ice caps are much smaller.. Ice reflects sun light.. Without ice, the ocean warms.. Methane hydrates are melting.. The ocean is leaking methane because it is slowly warming.. These are all things that we can't control.. So no offense.. You article is a little out dated and moot to begin with..

So what caused the glaciers in Alaska to start retreating in the 1740's? Any one? Any one? Could it be natural causes? I doubt it was the internal combustion engine.

 

[mbig]

Alaska would be too localized and is an ILLogical question to ask (or reply to make) in response to GLOBAL warming.
I haven't researched 'alaska' but it's a geologically unstable and a volcanic area.
It's quite possible that was a cause.

But here's a more germaine point for GLOBAL warming.

Retreat of glaciers Since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which has been accelerating, especially in the last 50 years.

GOP/FOX politics is as bad/sick for Climate science as YEC is for Biology and evolutionary science.

 

[Deuce]

So what caused the glaciers in Alaska to start retreating in the 1740's? Any one? Any one? Could it be natural causes? I doubt it was the internal combustion engine.

Lung cancer existed before cigarettes. Would you say that proves cigarettes don't cause lung cancer?

 

[Poptech]

On the contrary. That's the starting point for most unless, like you, someone wants to foist the One-sided counterculture/wack-job Garbage your Blog does.
(such as articles claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS)

It is the starting point for computer illiterates like yourself not those who know how to do proper research. I see you are still confused as there is not a single article on the Blog that talks about AIDs. Apparently you still do not know the difference between a forum and Blog.

As I pointed out Your Megalomania makes your 'forum' effectively a blog. The same Megalomania/Paranoia (probably RSS feed) that apparently compels you to 'pop' up about 8 hours after being mentioned anywhere.

Sorry a forum is not a blog no matter how much you attempt to redefine words to cover up your computer illiteracy. The Popular Technology website technically uses blogging software and is not a "blog",

blog (defined) - "a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author."

forum (defined) - "An online discussion group. Online services and bulletin board services (BBS's) provide a variety of forums, in which participants with common interests can exchange open messages. Forums are sometimes called newsgroups (in the Internet world) or conferences."

My superior computer skills and vast knowledge of how to use the Internet efficiently allows me to keep track of silly nonsense such as yours posted against my site.

If you really want anonymity You should get more net savy. (take it from someone with superior search skills)

I have full anonymity of my person. All the posts as Poptech are intentional, as I want them directly affiliated with the site.

(note: I modified your links above, for better name accuracy and so as not to advertise your Conspiracy site, and make it more diffiCult for your RSS feed to find. Yeah, "computer illiterate")

You keep demonstrating you have no idea how any of this works. RSS has nothing to do with it.

So even after irrefutable evidence of five posts DEBUNKING conspiracy theories you are still going to lie about the site being a conspiracy theory site? Fascinating.

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier Lies « Greenfyre’s

Starting to figure out how to use Google? Too bad you continue to fail,

Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"

That is a little old, you need to try harder but I have rebuttals for all of them,

The Truth About Greenfyre

Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.

"My experience is that many people are impressed and supportive of the radical militant actions that we do. ...I make no secret of my militant activism, arrests etc; [...]

...we do break the law. [...]

In a few weeks I, and 50 others are off to jail. ...I do what I do because of a "pure, true love for the Earth."

- Mike Kaulbars, 1990

 

[mbig]

On the contrary. That's the starting point for most unless, like you, someone wants to foist the One-sided counterculture/wack-job Garbage your Blog does.
(such as articles claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS)

It is the starting point for computer illiterates like yourself not those who know how to do proper research.

On the contrary. There is plenty of debate on entries (BOTH sides) and plenty of well-researched and footnoted entries.
Unlike the Wack Jobs you foist on your Conspiracy Blog.

I see you are still confused as there is not a single article on the Blog that talks about AIDs.

Oh I see.
You just "pin" them to the uh.. uh.. [one-man] 'Forum' and therefore they're not on your 'blog'.
: ^)
Popular Technology -> HIV/AIDs Controversy

So to be honest (You need a definition on that) YOU ARE Foisting this preposterous Bullcrap- just putting it on different sections of your .. ahem.. 'Blog'.
aka, one-man-forum.
How Disingenuous/Dishonest.
And I might add that garbage is despicable and a disservice to society. There is NO real scientific 'controversy' on AIDS except on PoptartReallyhappened.com, witchdoctors and prisonplanet/webfairy/Rense/etc

Apparently you still do not know the difference between a forum and Blog.
Sorry a forum is not a blog no matter how much you attempt to redefine words to cover up your computer illiteracy. The Popular Technology website technically uses blogging software and is not a "blog",
blog (def - "a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author."
forum (defi - "An online discussion group. Online services and bulletin board services (BBS's) provide a variety of forums, in which participants with common interests can exchange open messages. Forums are sometimes called newsgroups (in the Internet world) or conferences.".....

You insist on calling your ONE-man shows 'forums'. It's JUST YOU and YOUR opinion.
Which is so whacked, it will always, and Again, EFFECTIVELY be a blog.
These 'definitions' are in this case the classic distinction without a difference.

Not to mention, ie, the Goebbelsian "Pinning" your own 20 string starters on top, effectively ECLIPSING and real discussion and dicktating the agenda. (whether or not there's even a single other poster around)
Popular Technology -> The Sciences
As I said, Megalomania/Paranoia is rampant throughout your net life.

I have full anonymity of my person.

No ya don't.
And You're confusing 'anonymity' with dementia or incontinence. Though you got 'full' right.

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier Lies « Greenfyre’s

Which is again is Here.
Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies « Greenfyre’s

His 'rebuttal' doesn't hold up, his "450" list was Eviscerated.