Game News Support Nazism by Supporting Grimoire

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

I think Cleve was just pulling your leg there. At least I hope he was. The whole superhuman thing seems to be some sort of Asperger's afflicted attempt at joking that we average humans can't really comprehend.

Please lay off the Asperger's cracks guys. I have plenty of AS friends and they aren't all like this fucktard, none of them are, in fact.

He most likely does not even have Asperger's. He is showing no symptoms of it whatsoever.

Good try for somebody who knows absolutely nothing about it. Don't worry, everybody else is faking it too! You have little chance of being found out!

I heard your description of your friends.

One of the distinguishing traits of Asperger's is the virtual inability to understand why others can't reach conclusions identical to yours. All people with Asperger's tend to be extremely closeminded by the standards of ordinary people, who are in fact born closeminded and stay that way to the grave. Your description of your friends is in fact probably just the usual vaccine-generated retard autist. The chances of your actually meeting somebody in your lifetime with genuine Asperger's is about a million to one.

You cannot imagine what it is to stand alone on a plateau by yourself for forty-five years without a single person envying you the location in all that time ... then to wake up one morning to a crowd of a million people all claiming they were there first.

Personally, I have never met another person I thought had Asperger's. I suspect it is one of the rarest psychological afflictions a person can manifest.

I have met hundreds of autistic types with some Aspergerish qualities. As soon as they spoke, you could see the group-consensus reality generator in their heads was fully intact, perhaps just running slightly askew. As for someone so extreme like me, always wanted to but never met'em. Their speech gives them away in a microsecond.

There was a guy at work claiming to have Asperger's last year, I didn't tell him I was the real thing. He was big on talking about global warming - which of course, nobody with Asperger's would ever fall for, not even for a microsecond. Global warming has no representation in the real world outside of televitz.

 

[Krancor]

which of course, nobody with Asperger's would ever fall for, not even for a microsecond. Global warming has no representation in the real world outside of televitz.

ho ho ho

It's hilarious to me when libertarians so vehemently deny gobal warming's very existence, in spite of obvious evidence, just becaue it points to the underlying fallacy that they believe all people are complete separate and independent, which unfortunately is never true.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

A minority starving ain't gonna change the reality that there is more than enough food to feed the world population and that we could easily produce more. Especially if we stopped with shit like ethanol fuels. A couple of thousands starving in remote places of the earth won't exactly points towards any apocalypse.

I was in Cole's supermarket today and when I asked what had happened to the fruit section, the manager looked like he was going to faint. He stammered something about "a problem that is not going to clear up any time soon." Then he said, "If you think there's a fruit shortage, go over and have a look in grains." Many of the shelves were empty there. Remember, I predicted the Trifecta in 1999 in my earliest post on Vault-Co. Back before it even sounded sane, I said the triangle of resource conflicts, climate change and the death of pollinators was going to produce the worst famine in human history. That was TEN YEARS AGO I predicted that. A decade ago, nobody knew what I was talking about. That's why I have Cassandra's Complex.

I don't know which little shithole you live in, but I buy loads of frutis despite not a single one growing were I live. Shops in the western world THROW AWAY enough food to feed all the starving people of the world. People starving is not because we don't produce enough food, it's because they pop out loads of children in poor areas or areas with little food. the world also have the capability to produce way more food than we currently do. Sweden could easily double it's food production, but that will not happen since it ain't economically feasible.

Now all you need is a planet with weather patterns like from 1850-1990, before early frosts started causing crop failures all over the world. The interglacial is over. Anything you were used to back during those days is finished.

Without that kind of dependability in solar output (Maunder's minimum in 2012, will stay that cold for at least 200 years afterward) there is never again going to be a harvest like people took for granted in 1990.

You keep sneering as if it's all the fault of evil capitalism, but it's all the fault of evil solar cycles. No political system is going to ever be able to achieve the fertility of the world as it was at the end of the last decade.

If the sun decides to chill for a couple of centuries (people like me say millennia) and it already has, then this party is permanently over.

Every time you see a civilization collapse, it always combines these two elements : a generation of the worst fools born at the worst time to run out of problem-solving ability.

Our ancestors would have found it tough to keep our lifestyle stable in a new Ice Age, as for our current population, they will find it impossible. They need to pick out a cheap coffin and a cheaper suit right now.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

which of course, nobody with Asperger's would ever fall for, not even for a microsecond. Global warming has no representation in the real world outside of televitz.

ho ho ho

It's hilarious to me when libertarians so vehemently deny gobal warming's very existence, in spite of obvious evidence, just becaue it points to the underlying fallacy that they believe all people are complete separate and independent, which unfortunately is never true.

Cheap religion for people too dumb to even keep the faith of their fathers.

Global-warmthinkery is the last stop for the last man, whom Nietzsche predicted would race with death to grab extinction and call it his victory.

 

[Korgan]

Um. If whoever's running the Codex these days ever bothers to look at this Shitty Shit Pile Of Shit (+10 to Shit/+10 to Shit), here's an idea. Why not reward Cleve's recent posting activity with a nice custom title? I really don't think "Novice" reflects the great man's true epicness and reputation well. "Ubermensch Half-Troll Zombie Dumbfuck Overlord" sounds much more imposing and appropriate, huh?

 

[kris]

Now all you need is a planet with weather patterns like from 1850-1990, before early frosts started causing crop failures all over the world. The interglacial is over. Anything you were used to back during those days is finished.

Without that kind of dependability in solar output (Maunder's minimum in 2012, will stay that cold for at least 200 years afterward) there is never again going to be a harvest like people took for granted in 1990.

You keep sneering as if it's all the fault of evil capitalism, but it's all the fault of evil solar cycles. No political system is going to ever be able to achieve the fertility of the world as it was at the end of the last decade.

If the sun decides to chill for a couple of centuries (people like me say millennia) and it already has, then this party is permanently over.

Every time you see a civilization collapse, it always combines these two elements : a generation of the worst fools born at the worst time to run out of problem-solving ability.

Our ancestors would have found it tough to keep our lifestyle stable in a new Ice Age, as for our current population, they will find it impossible. They need to pick out a cheap coffin and a cheaper suit right now.

Good to see you are not worried about global warming at least.

 

[Moggs]

Maunder's minimum in 2012, will stay that cold for at least 200 years afterward

Um, trust me when I say I know a little more about this than you, and frankly, that's complete bollocks. With some of the press releases coming out, I can understand how you'd conclude that, but it's simply not the case. Yes, this solar cycle is weaker than it was expected to be, but it's really no different to the 1960s. It's not a big change in the Sun's behaviour like the Maunder min was.

You keep sneering as if it's all the fault of evil capitalism, but it's all the fault of evil solar cycles. No political system is going to ever be able to achieve the fertility of the world as it was at the end of the last decade.

If the sun decides to chill for a couple of centuries (people like me say millennia) and it already has, then this party is permanently over.

Actually, the coincidence of the Maunder minimum and freezing of the Thames aside, there's little-to-no evidence for solar activity (with is all the Maunder min is - there's no change in the Sun's temperature or heat output, another big misconception) affecting climate. Any "solar forcing" is hundreds of times weaker than a what small change in the C02 concentration in our atmosphere would produce.

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

You seem to have picked up on a few controversial science topics (and it's always good to listen to the scientists, don't get me wrong) but come to the wrong conclusions. Easy to do without really reading up on the subject, which no-one outside the field really has time to do. The danger is that scientists sometimes feel the need to hype their findings to get the public interested, but it can lead to a whole heap of misunderstanding.

 

[TrustNo1]

Easy to do without really reading up on the subject, which no-one outside the field really has time to do.

No-one but Cleve you mean.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Maunder's minimum in 2012, will stay that cold for at least 200 years afterward

Um, trust me when I say I know a little more about this than you, and frankly, that's complete bollocks. With some of the press releases coming out, I can understand how you'd conclude that, but it's simply not the case. Yes, this solar cycle is weaker than it was expected to be, but it's really no different to the 1960s. It's not a big change in the Sun's behaviour like the Maunder min was.

You keep sneering as if it's all the fault of evil capitalism, but it's all the fault of evil solar cycles. No political system is going to ever be able to achieve the fertility of the world as it was at the end of the last decade.

If the sun decides to chill for a couple of centuries (people like me say millennia) and it already has, then this party is permanently over.

Actually, the coincidence of the Maunder minimum and freezing of the Thames aside, there's little-to-no evidence for solar activity (with is all the Maunder min is - there's no change in the Sun's temperature or heat output, another big misconception) affecting climate. Any "solar forcing" is hundreds of times weaker than a what small change in the C02 concentration in our atmosphere would produce.

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

You seem to have picked up on a few controversial science topics (and it's always good to listen to the scientists, don't get me wrong) but come to the wrong conclusions. Easy to do without really reading up on the subject, which no-one outside the field really has time to do. The danger is that scientists sometimes feel the need to hype their findings to get the public interested, but it can lead to a whole heap of misunderstanding.

Can I hold you to that?

So nobody outside the field has access to the special edjumifacational knowledge, is that what you're saying? Without having my penis branded in a secret ceremony of paleoclimatologists, I can never hope to understand these things?

Sounds like the way mediocre people use social engineering to insure their jobs.

How about this?

My native intelligence is like a royal genetic flush to your social pair of deuces. I can learn more about climatology in one year of reading (I've actually been studying the subject for 9 years now) than you can in eight years of university including your doctorate, which was probably a bizarre screed about the danger posed by decomposing baby nappies to the earth's orbit.

It's not that you don't know it. You don't even know what you don't know. What little you think you do know, is all wrong.

Like "Not Sure" in IDIOCRACY, it's not that I'm all that smart ... it's that you make me look good, relatively speaking.

So you're saying our ancestors from 1820's (first recognition that end of 20th century would usher in new Ice Age) right through to 1970's got it wrong, but the latest crop of subliterate Playstation specialists got it right? (Evil farting cows are destroying the air and warming the planet)

Scientists were certain the end of the interglacial was at hand within 50 years in 1955 and they weren't wrong. You were. Every 11,500 years like clockwork. Guess how long ago the last Ice Age was? Exactly. In 2012 there is going to be the mother of solar maximums and after that this planet is going to cool for a long time in an environment of radically reduced solar output.

... and you think rice is expensive now.

You think we have resource conflicts at the present? You have not seen anything. Wait until spring doesn't show up in North America until June and only stays until the end of August. Summer won't come at all. Then you'll see some resource conflicts.

Trust me, you don't even know what you don't know. Like those guys in the Army I told you about, you don't even recognize when you've been lapped.

 

[luckyb0y]

Cleve your rants are so disarming that there is just one thing left to do
:facepalm:

 

[Moggs]

Look Cleve, best current scientific knowledge contradicts your claims about the solar cycle and its effect on the Earth's climate. That's it. You're entitled to *believe* whatever the hell you like. Doesn't make it scientific anymore than claiming the world is 5000 years old because some book says it is.

I'm not claiming you, or anyone else, is *not capable* of understanding the science behind all this. I'm just saying at the moment you don't, meaning your claims are ignorant.

And if we go about stating that there's so much more we don't know than we do know, and everything we know is wrong, as you suggest, then we may as well give up on science altogether, right? Well, sorry, but it's served us pretty well so far. It's enabled an era of uneducated argument between people that have never met, for example.

 

[rpgcodexusername]

Cleve is right in not trusting the scientific mainstream
scientists are funded by corporations to make sure certain experiments turn out a certain way - e.g. drug companies are always releasing dangerous drugs after all the supposed tests have been done.

You cant trust everything that scientists do, unfortunately

other research funded by Universities could also be swayed if they wanted the results to indicate global warming due to CO2.

Im no expert in climatology - well I know bugger-all about it really -

So how do you explain that CO2 causes global warming on venus Mr.Blakemore?

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Look Cleve, best current scientific knowledge contradicts your claims about the solar cycle and its effect on the Earth's climate. That's it. You're entitled to *believe* whatever the hell you like. Doesn't make it scientific anymore than claiming the world is 5000 years old because some book says it is.

I'm not claiming you, or anyone else, is *not capable* of understanding the science behind all this. I'm just saying at the moment you don't, meaning your claims are ignorant.

And if we go about stating that there's so much more we don't know than we do know, and everything we know is wrong, as you suggest, then we may as well give up on science altogether, right? Well, sorry, but it's served us pretty well so far. It's enabled an era of uneducated argument between people that have never met, for example.

My point is - I get lectured all the time by Gore's useful idiots on the "current scientific knowledge" without those people realizing they are feeding me the equivalent of neolithic superstition that has nothing at all to do with what the best climatologists in the field believe is about to happen.

For example ... you think a new Ice Age is fringe science? Do tell? Is it fringe with Gray, Hansen, Keeling, Bryson and Schreuder?

Now I am aware the dirty peasants, who are rife with what can only be called intellectual STDs they have caught off televitz, are of this opinion. They don't know what they don't know either.

To answer your question, yes, I think it is time that ordinary human beings stopped pretending to be scientists. They are decline scientists, which is to say they are political scientists and socialist scientists which is to say there is nothing scientific about most scientists nowadays. I do not believe the common man should put on a turban and strut about trying to sound intellamajehnt and stuff. Irregardless of what Oprah has told him.

Moggs, you are far, far outside the power curve intellectually. You're so far outside it, you now believe you are in the middle of it. In fact, you're in the middle of a bunch of made up voodoo that our average IQ-97 nation thinks is scienmahjific.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Cleve is right in not trusting the scientific mainstream
scientists are funded by corporations to make sure certain experiments turn out a certain way - e.g. drug companies are always releasing dangerous drugs after all the supposed tests have been done.

You cant trust everything that scientists do, unfortunatly

other research funded by Universities could also be swayed if they wanted the results to indicate global warming due to CO2.

Im no expert in climatology - well I know bugger-all about it really -

So how do you explain that CO2 causes global warming on venus Mr.Blakemore?

How do you explain major climate change observed on seven planets in our solar system in the past ten years, Mars Jupiter and Venus being the most dramatic? We cannot expect the Kyoto Treaty to be binding unless everybody signs it and that includes the dirty capitalist polluters on Mars and Jupiter.

I refer you all to ANTONIO GRAMSCI. The real father of global warming, which incidentally there is a hilarious story behind. The first major contributions to global greenhouse gases apparently came from the communist who dreamed up environmental terrorism as a communist control strategy. During his time in prison, Gramsci farted so badly and with such toxic fury he had to be kept in solitary away from the other prisoners who wanted to kill him to stifle his thunder anus.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Europe could feed a lot of Africa if our leaders would let us.

The problem isn't so much Europe's leaders, it's Africa's leaders. Just look at Zimbabwe. It used to be the breadbasket of Africa, exporting wheat, tobacco and other agricultural goods to the rest of Africa. Then Robert Mugabe took over and decided to take land away from the European farmers and give it to native Africans. The army was used to evict and/or kill the European farmers because Mugabe figured that since the Europeans didn't pay for their land there, the natice Africans wouldn't have to pay them to take it back. The Africans didn't know what they were doing, and now they're starving. Since the Africans were just given the farms for free, many of them stripped the irrigation systems and other equipment and sold the metal for scrap because they had nothing invested in it operating successfully. Of course, they also confiscated a lot of the other industry in Zimbabwe and converted it to a socialist style government as well. They had an inflation rate of around 800 percent a few years running.

Most of Africa would be prime for agricultural development. There's no real, good reason why Africa couldn't feed itself. They've got good, fertile land throughout most of the nation and a great climate to grow crops.

ps. Cleve is right about global warming. The only thing I'd take exception with what I had time to read of his is that we're currently in an Ice Age and have been ever since civilization existed on this planet. Polar ice hasn't existed on this planet the majority of the time it's been habitable. Ice at the poles and glaciers on continents is the definition of an Ice Age.

 

[Moggs]

How do you explain major climate change observed on seven planets in our solar system in the past ten years, Mars Jupiter and Venus being the most dramatic?

Aw, Cleve, you've spoiled it now. This was fun for a bit: Arguing about stuff, you deflecting the argument once someone pointing out how far off the mark you were, you making an even more radical claim to sidestep the issue. But now you're just making up stuff that doesn't even *sound* scienmajifically plausible!

EDIT: Climate change on 7 planets in our solar system? Hohohoho. Only Earth and Venus really have an atmosphere, and therefore are the only two that could have the remotest possibility of "climate change". Mars has a very tenuous atmosphere, with a pressure close to a good vacuum. Jupiter is a giant ball of hydrogen and helium - how exactly does it undergo "climate change"?

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Europe could feed a lot of Africa if our leaders would let us.

The problem isn't so much Europe's leaders, it's Africa's leaders. Just look at Zimbabwe. It used to be the breadbasket of Africa, exporting wheat, tobacco and other agricultural goods to the rest of Africa. Then Robert Mugabe took over and decided to take land away from the European farmers and give it to native Africans. The army was used to evict and/or kill the European farmers because Mugabe figured that since the Europeans didn't pay for their land there, the natice Africans wouldn't have to pay them to take it back. The Africans didn't know what they were doing, and now they're starving. Since the Africans were just given the farms for free, many of them stripped the irrigation systems and other equipment and sold the metal for scrap because they had nothing invested in it operating successfully. Of course, they also confiscated a lot of the other industry in Zimbabwe and converted it to a socialist style government as well. They had an inflation rate of around 800 percent a few years running.

Most of Africa would be prime for agricultural development. There's no real, good reason why Africa couldn't feed itself. They've got good, fertile land throughout most of the nation and a great climate to grow crops.

You're faking it again, Proverbius, what's the risk you'd be caught, anyway? We all know that everybody else is faking it too.

Rhodesia was paid for in solid gold bullion and sealed by legal contracts between all parties which were not challenged by anybody right up to the modern day. Mugabe stole the land, he wasn't "returning it to the rightful owners." The colony was named after Cecil Rhodes. His British South Africa Company acquired the land in the nineteenth century by negotiating a peaceful and legal transaction with the natives through their tribal chieftains who were only too eager to sell him what they considered worthless land. There is no evidence of any African cultivation of the soils there in the past two thousand years despite them being some of the most fertile on the continent.

Nobody was coerced and there were very few if any atrocities at the founding of Rhodesia.

Thought you'd do a little revisionism again on the fly, eh?

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

How do you explain major climate change observed on seven planets in our solar system in the past ten years, Mars Jupiter and Venus being the most dramatic?

Aw, Cleve, you've spoiled it now. This was fun for a bit: Arguing about stuff, you deflecting the argument once someone pointing out how far off the mark you were, you making an even more radical claim to sidestep the issue. But now you're just making up stuff that doesn't even *sound* scienmajifically plausible!

What's it like inside the televitz holographic reality bubble? I've always wondered. Do they paint the windows over inside of there so no natural sunlight can ever reach the interior, or project fake landscapes onto bricked-up walls. With my Asperger's, that holodeck will never be anything but an empty room for me.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 720024.ece

 

[Moggs]

Cleve, that's not really climate change - it's seasons! The two are very, very different. Just because some journalist read a Nature article and attached the latest buzz word to it, doesn't make it science.

Also, you stated climate change on 7 planets in our solar system, notably Mars and Jupiter? Only Earth and Venus really have an atmosphere, and therefore are the only two that could have the remotest possibility of "climate change". Mars has a very tenuous atmosphere, with a pressure close to a reasonable vacuum. Jupiter is a giant ball of hydrogen and helium - how exactly does it undergo "climate change"?

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

How do you explain major climate change observed on seven planets in our solar system in the past ten years, Mars Jupiter and Venus being the most dramatic?

Aw, Cleve, you've spoiled it now. This was fun for a bit: Arguing about stuff, you deflecting the argument once someone pointing out how far off the mark you were, you making an even more radical claim to sidestep the issue. But now you're just making up stuff that doesn't even *sound* scienmajifically plausible!

EDIT: Climate change on 7 planets in our solar system? Hohohoho. Only Earth and Venus really have an atmosphere, and therefore are the only two that could have the remotest possibility of "climate change". Mars has a very tenuous atmosphere, with a pressure close to a good vacuum. Jupiter is a giant ball of hydrogen and helium - how exactly does it undergo "climate change"?

It sounds like a squeaky voice coming from a little midget nailed inside a blacked-out packing crate his entire life and fed through a straw poking through one corner on a diet of liquid gruel.

I thought you were all up to date on scienmajific things and edjumification and whatnot? You sound only recently down out of the trees.

I will point you in the right direction but I'm not going to do your research for you.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .037% CO2. Most of Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which is lighter than CO2. N2 has a molecular weight of 14 while CO2 has a molecular weight of 22. The majority of CO2 on Earth isn't way the hell up there like it is on Venus. The majority of it is close to the ground. Nitrogen does a damned good job of keeping that mean old CO2 down.

In short, Venus needs way more nitrogen.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Cleve, that's not really climate change - it's seasons! The two are very, very different. Just because some journalist read a Nature article and attached the latest buzz word to it, doesn't make it science.

Also, you stated climate change on 7 planets in our solar system, notably Mars and Jupiter? Only Earth and Venus really have an atmosphere, and therefore are the only two that could have the remotest possibility of "climate change". Mars has a very tenuous atmosphere, with a pressure close to a reasonable vacuum. Jupiter is a giant ball of hydrogen and helium - how exactly does it undergo "climate change"?

You're a funny little man. I'd like to shave your skull and beat it like a bongo to the tune of "Stormy Weather."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... rming.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM6JHX5WRD_foryou_0.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 31208.html

Milankovitch will laugh at all of you when you are snap frozen peoplesicles under a couple stories of snow slowly undergoing glaciation. Who knows, someday my descendants may painstakingly excavate you, using great care not to damage your frozen tissues and then use you like Homer did to toboggan down the side of a mountain.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .037% CO2. Most of Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which is lighter than CO2. N2 has a molecular weight of 14 while CO2 has a molecular weight of 22. The majority of CO2 on Earth isn't way the hell up there like it is on Venus. The majority of it is close to the ground. Nitrogen does a damned good job of keeping that mean old CO2 down.

In short, Venus needs way more nitrogen.

You sound really intellamajehnt and whatnot! I'll bet the other halfwits are really impressed with you.

Listen, if you have 3 buckets holding 8 gallons and 2 buckets holding 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have? Getting this question right was what convinced President Camacho to ask me about the agricultural problem!

CO2 doesn't mean anything, doesn't control anything and doesn't affect anything. It has been much higher and much colder, far less and much warmer. CO2 means nothing in the history of this planet and outside of increasing crop harvests has virtually no effect on climate of any kind.

I heard different on the televitz device! It must be true.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Thought you'd do a little revisionism again on the fly, eh?

I'm not sure what you're saying that disputed anything I said. I said that Mugabe said that the land was stolen, which he did as justification for stealing it by using his military to force the European farmers off those farms. If Mugabe were smart and wanted native Africans to farm instead of mine, he should have offered the Europeans grants to train Africans and then given the Africans grants to set up farms elsewhere. Instead, he just ran off the Europeans who were producing exportable surpluses of goods, the Africans tore up the equipment to sell it as scrap metal, and everyone gets to starve.

It's another great milestone in the history of Socialism.

 

[Moggs]

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .037% CO2. Most of Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which is lighter than CO2. N2 has a molecular weight of 14 while CO2 has a molecular weight of 22. The majority of CO2 on Earth isn't way the hell up there like it is on Venus. The majority of it is close to the ground. Nitrogen does a damned good job of keeping that mean old CO2 down.

In short, Venus needs way more nitrogen.

Actually, Venus needs more water, because on Earth the water cycle controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (it works a bit like a thermostat - if you try increase CO2, it removes more, if you try remove more CO2, it removes less, keeping it in balance. This only works if the changes occur over ~10,000 years, much longer than changes we're currently seeing). Doesn't change the fact that Venus is hotter because it has more CO2. Even climate-change skeptics wouldn't debate that.