• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are the real issues in the U.S.?

The world's climate experts are all from the left and have had the intent of helping the US Democrats for the last half century? Where do you get this stuff from???

Well given your best evidence was a whiny pathetic opinion piece, it likely comes from being around people like you. Thanks! You are done. :mrgreen:
 
Well given your best evidence was a whiny pathetic opinion piece, it likely comes from being around people like you. Thanks! You are done. :mrgreen:

My best evidence was that 97% of climate scientists concur on AGW, as well as every scientific organization of national or international standing since 2007.


Sheesh, even rednecks are getting up to speed on climate change, so I would guess conservatives can't be much more backward, can they?

 
My best evidence was that 97% of climate scientists concur on AGW, as well as every scientific organization of national or international standing since 2007.

Sorry, too late. Repeating the same failed argument again, doesn't make a point. Been fun, but you are boring me again. At least before I found you funny.
 
Sorry, too late. Repeating the same failed argument again, doesn't make a point. Been fun, but you are boring me again. At least before I found you funny.

Run along then, I would give up too if the great majority of experts throughout the world supported the opposite position I was taking. Tute-a-loo Sparkles!
 
Check out the regularity of this. Its' interesting.

I see at least 3 rather regular cycles that are not random, I wonder what they are from. Who knows, we'll never know cause Global Warming has to infiltrate every subject.

And it's interesting how the temperature jumps UP, but going down is a very slow process, in a jerking motion, like letting yourself down on a rope. I wonder what does that. Who knows, we'll probably never never know cause Global Warming has to infiltrate every subject.

What on EARTH makes you think that graph is anything close to real data?

Get REAL, it is not Science, it total made up Bull Pucky!

It would be very difficult to tell anyone what the Temperature of the "Earth" was today, much less 400,000 years ago.

What would you do to measure the Temperature of the "Earth"? Walk outside in your back yard with a thermometer?

Just a few of the factors which cause temperature variance: Time of Day, Altitude, Latitude, Local Vegitation, Season, Storms...

Ok, so lets say you take 1000 measurements all over the world and "Average" them.

Did you sample evenly from all Times of Day, Altitudes, Latitudes, in all Seasons, only when there were not Storms.... What exactly defines a "Storm", from just a bit of "Overcast"?

If you try to compare your "Average" Temperature from 2012 to a "Measurement" made in 2000, and they took more measurements at 6000 feet + altitude than your measurement did, don't you think your "Measurement" might show an increase of a degree or two?

Were the measurements made wet bulb or dry? Was the meter NIST certified calibrated? What was the exact proceedure used to measure the temperature? Was it soil temperature? Air Temperature? Were the people who tooke the measurements trained in the proceedure? What is the chain of data control to protect the data from agendized tampering?

Was there a CONTROL for this experiement? Did Team A measure California one week and New York the next and vice versa for the starting in New York team to even out systematic errors? Did two teams ever take data in the same state on the same day to cross compare for consistancy?

How was the "Average" Calculated? Where their safe guards to prevent double data entry?

How in the devil did the people who made that graph KNOW with any degree of certainty what the temperature was 400,000 years ago?

This is NOT Science, it is Propaganda!
 
Last edited:
Anyways, the topic is "What are the real issues in the U.S.?" not fabricated stuff the left comes up with to keep morons voting for the Democratic Party.
so, when you have nothing you run from the topic under discussion
look at this; wonder who was participating til he got his ass beat in the debate:
There is no "scientific consensus".
 
The oceans hold tons of heat over a very long time frame, don't you think?

Over a 400,000 year time frame the Earth's heat capacity (atmosphere, topsoil and ocean) is more like tinfoil being subjected to heat or cold.

10 Ocean Facts

I think it's plausible that the ocean would release heat more slowly over time. But when the sun heated up, the temperature on land at least, would increase instantly.

Interesting mental puzzle, I'll give you that.

400,000 year time frame.

If it were just the sun than the sun output theoretically would match up perfectly with that graph, but there are 3 cycles going on; 2 normal waves, and a sawtooth wave.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, Sometimes FACT is Stranger than Fiction:

John Holdren, Barack Obama appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

Science Czar – John Holdren

In his book, Holdren advocates some of the most bizarre and horrifying policy stances imaginable. In the event of a “over-population crises,” Holdren supports “laws requiring compulsory abortion,” government confiscation of new born babies, the “development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin,” and, incredibly, “adding a sterilant to drinking water or stable foods….”

On the Subject of advocating purges of political dissidents:
Or Maybe we should just Kill the Deniers?



That’s Just not true.

Idealized Gasoline, synthetic fuel without any of the impurities and nitrates, sulfates and other pollutants found in Gasoline dug up from ground goes thru a combustion process:

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O + 35 MJ/L

So, granted it would be energy expensive, but why not invent a machine to reverse the process:

16 CO2 + 18 H2O + ~100 MJ/L → 2 C8H18 + 25 O2

Synthetic fuel!

The above Quotes of myself are from two posts I made back on page twelve of this Thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ical-platforms/123282-real-issues-u-s-12.html

The first post I made on page twelve showed how the radical climate left really did make published comments about wanting to involuntarily sterilize people and “Punish” “Imprison” and in some cases “Execute” those who disagreed with their views on climate change.

Nobody even seemed to notice…

The second post I made on page twelve outlined a reasonable, feasible and low pollution way to SOLVE the climate problem and provide an ongoing sustainable energy source indefinitely.

Nobody even seemed to notice…

Four pages of heated debate later, and a Solution handed out on a platter was of no interest to either side?

This argument is NOT about saving the planet from environmental problems. It is about using made up climate scare tactics to achieve social and political domination.

The current crop of fascists will use AGW instead of anti-Semitism.

In keeping with the OP Question of this thread, the climate issue will be important to the 2012 election, in that those who THINK will vote against anyone claiming that AGW is a reason to vote for their ticket.
 
Run along then, I would give up too if the great majority of experts throughout the world supported the opposite position I was taking. Tute-a-loo Sparkles!

Wow, yet another fail of a post. No evidence, no valid points, no scientific basis. You've just been the king of fail lately. But as much as I enjoy mocking your pathetic posts, I'm sure this is not interesting to other posters. Like a yapping Chiwawa, who still doesn't realize he simply can't hurt the German Shepperd who just stepped on him, I think you've wasted enough of everyone's time.

So I'm going to help you out. I'm going to take the advice I got months ago when I first met you, and ignore you. Normally I would be worried I'd miss some insight, or factoids I didn't know, but you have a long track record that puts those fears to rest. So long Catawba! I'll never see a post by you for the duration of my stay on this forum! :2razz:
 
Over a 400,000 year time frame the Earth's heat capacity (atmosphere, topsoil and ocean) is more like tinfoil being subjected to heat or cold.



400,000 year time frame.

If it were just the sun than the sun output theoretically would match up perfectly with that graph, but there are 3 cycles going on; 2 normal waves, and a sawtooth wave.

Why would you say a 400,000 time frame? I was thinking more along the lines of decades.
 
Wow, yet another fail of a post. No evidence, no valid points, no scientific basis. You've just been the king of fail lately. But as much as I enjoy mocking your pathetic posts, I'm sure this is not interesting to other posters. Like a yapping Chiwawa, who still doesn't realize he simply can't hurt the German Shepperd who just stepped on him, I think you've wasted enough of everyone's time.

So I'm going to help you out. I'm going to take the advice I got months ago when I first met you, and ignore you. Normally I would be worried I'd miss some insight, or factoids I didn't know, but you have a long track record that puts those fears to rest. So long Catawba! I'll never see a post by you for the duration of my stay on this forum! :2razz:

forgot something
white_flag_surrender.webp

cat has been the one who has backed up his position with factual information
don't run away from the facts
you will learn nothing by running from someone who outclasses you in debate
stick around and defend your position ... but recognize bluster will not well serve your argument

tell us why global warming should not be found a major issue, here and abroad
 
forgot something

cat has been the one who has backed up his position with factual information
don't run away from the facts
you will learn nothing by running from someone who outclasses you in debate
stick around and defend your position ... but recognize bluster will not well serve your argument

tell us why global warming should not be found a major issue, here and abroad

Nah. I've never seen a post from him with relevant facts. At most he'll spout off that "it's the opinion of X". That's not scientific fact. That's him blindly referring to someone else's opinion. That's great if you are a mindless lemming to blindly follows people. I think too much for that level of intelligence. You want to make a claim? Show me the science. Show me the actually data. Not what someone said about it. Not someone's opinion on it.

I showed the facts. You can go back and read them. It is conclusive scientific data. Not opinion. If you can't do that.... well then I have other people I wish to talk to. If he had ever shown anything worth reading, I would want to read his posts. But I was warned his posts were pointless and stupid, and he proved that here.

Now if you'll excuse me... :2razz:
 
That’s Just not true.

Idealized Gasoline, synthetic fuel without any of the impurities and nitrates, sulfates and other pollutants found in Gasoline dug up from ground goes thru a combustion process:

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O + 35 MJ/L

So, granted it would be energy expensive, but why not invent a machine to reverse the process:

16 CO2 + 18 H2O + ~100 MJ/L → 2 C8H18 + 25 O2

Synthetic fuel!

I found one problem with your proposal.

The amount of energy required to reverse that process would be inherently greater than the amount of energy released to begin with.
You'd be spending $20 to save $10. That would make this process almost automatically more expensive than pumping oil out of the ground.
 
Nah. I've never seen a post from him with relevant facts. At most he'll spout off that "it's the opinion of X". That's not scientific fact. That's him blindly referring to someone else's opinion. That's great if you are a mindless lemming to blindly follows people. I think too much for that level of intelligence. You want to make a claim? Show me the science. Show me the actually data. Not what someone said about it. Not someone's opinion on it.

I showed the facts. You can go back and read them. It is conclusive scientific data. Not opinion. If you can't do that.... well then I have other people I wish to talk to. If he had ever shown anything worth reading, I would want to read his posts. But I was warned his posts were pointless and stupid, and he proved that here.

Now if you'll excuse me... :2razz:

For you to consider: Run along then, I would give up too if the great majority of experts throughout the world supported the opposite position I was taking. Tute-a-loo Sparkles!

"William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny.

The authors then classified those researchers as convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change, based on such factors as whether they have signed public statements endorsing or dissenting from the big United Nations reports raising alarm about the issue. Then the authors analyzed how often each scientist had been published in the climate-science literature, as well as how often each had been cited in other papers. (The latter is a standard measure of scientific credibility and influence.)

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change."


Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change - NYTimes.com
 
I found one problem with your proposal.

The amount of energy required to reverse that process would be inherently greater than the amount of energy released to begin with.
You'd be spending $20 to save $10. That would make this process almost automatically more expensive than pumping oil out of the ground.

If you burn a $20 of Gasoline in a small portable generator, you do NOT get $20 of electricity at Grid Electric rates.

When you currently charge the battery in your cell phone, you put more energy into charging that battery, than the cell phone gets to extract from it on discharge. The same thing occurs when you charge an all-electric car.

When you burn gasoline, by thermo-dynamic laws, you can only extract a portion, usually less than 50% of the available energy to perform "Work" from your engine. Some engines are more efficient than others, such as a Diesel Cycle or Sterling Cycle engine, compared to an Otto Cycle Engine.

This does NOT mean that an Otto Cycle Engine won't work, most of us use them daily, it just means we lose some energy of the "ideal" extraction of the energy from the fuel.

If you look carefully at the equations and text I provided in the post, I acknowledge this.

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O + 35 MJ/L

16 CO2 + 18 H2O + ~100 MJ/L → 2 C8H18 + 25 O2

You put in 100 MJ/L to get out 35 MJ/L. So what?!

Its 35 MJ/L that you can store, with a few trace stabilizer chemicals, for up to 10-20 YEARS, and it is not limited by the length of your power cord.

So, you put a 10 KW peak wind turbine, for a particular day it is generating an average of 5 KW for 24 hours.
5000 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 432 MJ which means you could produce 4.3 liters of fuel. This is enough for most of our daily commutes to work.

Done on a large scale using mirror array solar power towers or much larger wind turbines, plenty of fuel could be synthesized as well as the hydrocarbon feed stocks for fertilizers and plastics.

You won’t be using the SynthGas to produce electricity; you’ll be using to make stored energy for mobile applications such as personal transportation.

Even with the energy effificency in production, as a system, SynthGas is overall 5 times more efficent than the BEST possible mobile battery stored energy vehicles, and allot safer as well.

We WILL run out of fossil fuels. Long before we run out, it will become too dirty, as we scrape the bottom of the barrel for oil containing large amounts of sulfur, dioxins and other pollutants.

Using SynthGas means we keep the energy investment in the current gasoline vehicles and fuel distribution system, we just get the fuel from a new, renewable, sustainable source.
 
Last edited:
(a repeat of already discussed and irrelevant statements)

Everything you just posted I already responded to. It wasn't valid then, and it isn't now. Are you trying to tell me that NOT ONE of the leftists on this entire forum can post something valid?

None of you can? There isn't one thinking leftist on here? All of you can only rely on the opinions of others? Wow, this is much more sad than I had anticipated.
 
That's an assumption, on both accounts. The fact is, only 3.2% of CO2 put into the atmosphere is due to human activity.

Actually, it's math. Start with 382, subtract 316, then divide by 316. Try it! I guarantee, if you do it right, it will come out just shy of 0.21. Then you multiply by 100 and voila, 21%. Works every time.

Oh, and then there was the part about the historic concentration not having been over 300, and that ice core samples give us a count of the PPM of CO2 historically.

But, you're right about one thing: They are ever changing. Did you notice the 190 PPM figure that corresponded to ice ages? Interesting, that, don't you think?

It's interesting how facts and figures can counter a wacky conspiracy theory (WCT) that has every scientific organization in the world either dupes or trying to put one over on the rest of us.

Ah, but who cares about facts and figures, when the WCT is so much more fun?
 
Oh My God. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming.

...is a totally fabricated issue to keep stupid naive Democrats voting Democrat. Topic is: What are the real issues in the U.S.?



How easy it is for the big corporate fatcats to misdirect the attention of voters from the REAL issues, REAL issues like how the big corporate fatcats get bigger through cheap foreign labor: Free Trade and Open Borders.
 
Last edited:
If you burn a $20 of Gasoline in a small portable generator, you do NOT get $20 of electricity at Grid Electric rates.

When you currently charge the battery in your cell phone, you put more energy into charging that battery, than the cell phone gets to extract from it on discharge. The same thing occurs when you charge an all-electric car.

Correct. There is always energy loss, typically through heat, in every conversion of energy from one form to another.

When you burn gasoline, by thermo-dynamic laws, you can only extract a portion, usually less than 50% of the available energy to perform "Work" from your engine. Some engines are more efficient than others, such as a Diesel Cycle or Sterling Cycle engine, compared to an Otto Cycle Engine.

This does NOT mean that an Otto Cycle Engine won't work, most of us use them daily, it just means we lose some energy of the "ideal" extraction of the energy from the fuel.

If you look carefully at the equations and text I provided in the post, I acknowledge this.

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O + 35 MJ/L

16 CO2 + 18 H2O + ~100 MJ/L → 2 C8H18 + 25 O2

You put in 100 MJ/L to get out 35 MJ/L. So what?!

Its 35 MJ/L that you can store, with a few trace stabilizer chemicals, for up to 10-20 YEARS, and it is not limited by the length of your power cord.

So, you put a 10 KW peak wind turbine, for a particular day it is generating an average of 5 KW for 24 hours.
5000 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 432 MJ which means you could produce 4.3 liters of fuel. This is enough for most of our daily commutes to work.

Done on a large scale using mirror array solar power towers or much larger wind turbines, plenty of fuel could be synthesized as well as the hydrocarbon feed stocks for fertilizers and plastics.

You won’t be using the SynthGas to produce electricity; you’ll be using to make stored energy for mobile applications such as personal transportation.

Even with the energy effificency in production, as a system, SynthGas is overall 5 times more efficent than the BEST possible mobile battery stored energy vehicles, and allot safer as well.

We WILL run out of fossil fuels. Long before we run out, it will become too dirty, as we scrape the bottom of the barrel for oil containing large amounts of sulfur, dioxins and other pollutants.

Using SynthGas means we keep the energy investment in the current gasoline vehicles and fuel distribution system, we just get the fuel from a new, renewable, sustainable source.

First, a 10 KW wind mill runs upwards of of $60,000. You can buy a heck of a lot of regular gas for that much.

Second, a 10 KW wind mill is nearly the size of a house. Most people wouldn't even have a place to put such a thing.

Third, a 10 KW wind mill typically doesn't have a 50% efficiency rating. It's more like 35%. And that assumes people live in a place that has a constantly supply of wind, which again most do not.

However, I still think you are over estimating how much energy you'll get back from the process. 100 MJ to get 35 MJ. If the process gave you equal amount of liquid fuel, then that makes sense. But I'd wager you'll need 20% more energy to get make the same liquid fuel, and then get 35% of the energy back.

Plus, I'd also wager you'll need energy to purify the CO2 and H2O, to a high enough level to not damage the reaction process. Again, that's a guess. You obviously know more about this than I do.

I'd be interested in seeing a working model for sure.
 
Last edited:
Oh My God. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming.

...is a totally fabricated issue to keep stupid naive Democrats voting Democrat. Topic is: What are the real issues in the U.S.?



How easy it is for the big corporate fatcats to misdirect the attention of voters from the REAL issues, REAL issues like how the big corporate fatcats get bigger through cheap foreign labor: Free Trade and Open Borders.

I love how you indict global warming as a "fabricated issue" and then go on to rant about free trade.
 
Actually, it's math. Start with 382, subtract 316, then divide by 316. Try it! I guarantee, if you do it right, it will come out just shy of 0.21. Then you multiply by 100 and voila, 21%. Works every time.

Oh, and then there was the part about the historic concentration not having been over 300, and that ice core samples give us a count of the PPM of CO2 historically.

But, you're right about one thing: They are ever changing. Did you notice the 190 PPM figure that corresponded to ice ages? Interesting, that, don't you think?

It's interesting how facts and figures can counter a wacky conspiracy theory (WCT) that has every scientific organization in the world either dupes or trying to put one over on the rest of us.

Ah, but who cares about facts and figures, when the WCT is so much more fun?

You really don't see just how absolutely stupid you look every time you completely butcher the science? Moving on :)
 
Actually, it's math. Start with 382, subtract 316, then divide by 316. Try it! I guarantee, if you do it right, it will come out just shy of 0.21. Then you multiply by 100 and voila, 21%. Works every time.
...

The exact source of CO2 DOES NOT MATTER!

Compared to the green house effect contribution of free atmospheric methane (and water vapor), the green house effect of CO2 is negligible.

Compared to variances in Solar Spectrum and Solar Flux, the green house effect of ALL gases is negligible!

If I were running a pharmaceutical company, and I wanted to make the claim that my new drug Lowers cholesterol, I would have to meet scientifically accepted mathematical standards for “Correlation” between the usage of my new drug and monitored cholesterol levels.

The mathematics for scientific “Correlation” is not arbitrary. It is a well recognized mathematical standard.

If I were doing science in Pesticide effectiveness, my science would be held to the same standards for “Correlation”.

If I were doing commercial airliner fuel efficiency winglet design science, my work would be held to the same standards for “Correlation”.

To date, the ONLY scientifically Correlated data to what little accurate measurements that have been made on Global Temperature, is the variance in Solar Flux and Spectrum-Absorption.

Why is it, when it comes to “Climate Science”, we chose to throw out the standards we use in EVERY OTHER branch of Science?

I smell an AGENDA!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom