Discussions

Your CO2 Footprint - Grab the Microscope - an Illustration

+
0 Votes
Locked

Your CO2 Footprint - Grab the Microscope - an Illustration

maxwell edison
Carbon footprint. Carbon credits. Funny looking light bulbs. They say that human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is causing accelerated global warming and/or climate change. Yea, right! If you buy into this ludicrous notion, it may be time to give the claim a reality check.

If the Earth's atmosphere were to be represented on a 100 yard (91.44 meters) football field (an American football field), the make-up would look like something this:

From the goal line, go down 78 yards to the 22 yard line on the other end, and you have nitrogen.

Go 21 yards further, to the 1 yard line, and you have oxygen (99 yards total so far).

From the 1 yard line to the 3 inch line, you have argon.

From the 3 inch line to the 1 inch line, you have other gasses.

The last 1" would be representative of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Let's switch our units from inch to millimeters. One inch equals 25.4mm

95 percent of that last inch (25.4mm) is CO2 that comes from water vapor - that is, evaporation from oceans, lakes, rain water, and so on.

That leaves 1.27mm left on the field.

Out of that remainder, 0.678mm is CO2 from natural sources - volcanoes and other stuff from the earth.

That leaves 0.591mm - just over one-half of one millimeter - which is CO2 produced by human (and other creature) activity.

Out of that 0.591mm, about half is from CO2 exhaled (and/or exhausted) from living creatures, including us dastardly, planet-destroying, humans.

Which leaves 0.295mm - about one-fourth of one millimeter - of CO2 emissions from automobiles, power plants, SUVs, and anyone driving a Toyota Prius. (I wonder what the overall percentage difference would be between a Ford F250 pick-up and a Toyota Prius? It probably couldn't even be measured as a percentage of the whole.)

And they claim we're destroying the planet. Yea, right. The more you look into the claim, the sillier it gets. And the more you consider the real motives ........ the more it makes you wonder.
  • +
    1 Votes
    santeewelding

    Did you calculate, in addition to linear percentage of the whole, the quadratic and the cubic? May they be leveraged into a statement?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Bollocks ^2 = Total Crap
    Bollocks ^3 = Maxwell's Post

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    geez, at least refute the stats.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I was just answering Santee's cryptic utterance. I think I pointed out the crap-factor in Max's stats in another post which I posted before wasting pixels on the answer to Santee's. Put my response down to annoyance that the "football field" analogy is still being posted.

    Neil :)

    Edit to remove the first line of crap as it was a bit unfair.

    +
    1 Votes
    santeewelding

    To put down the football field analogy to annoyance is to put down any linear stab at understanding.

    You would likewise need to put down Sagan's walk on the calendar of earth history; scoff at him kneeling to point out the last seconds of the last minutes of our presence. His stab was linear, and startling to me, then and still now.

    While I don't rank him with Sagan, I do appreciate Maxwell's as a first stab, regardless of where he got it, or if he did it himself.

    My cryptic reference was based on the linear of his helpful stab. My questions were confined, as was his approach, to the number line, i.e., natural, rational, irrational, real, imaginary, complex.

    In a word, or a stab, the reason you get less topping on a pizza the further you go from the center along linear r is that the area near c increases dramatically by the square of r. Volume increases more so by the cube of r. Costs too much out there.

    I didn't do the math. I did see that his reliance on percentage could be affected.

    Do you like pizza?

    I do.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Stuffed crust is the answer. Especially the pepperoni stuffed crust which we now have in Pizza Hut over here. Pepperoni stuffed crust is equivalent to Einstein's modifications of Newton's Laws in a relativistic environment - makes it all nice again under any circumstance.

    I don't have any problem with Sagan's walk or other similar analogies but Maxwell's stab - and it's not original Maxwell as he can do better - falls on the fact that all but the final three inches are irrelevant in a discussion about Global Warming. All of the gases up to three inches from Touchdown are neutral to IR.

    Sagan's Planet Walk (I've heard of it but never been to NY) doesn't have a meaningless extra hundred miles tacked on representing the distance between Sirius and Alpha Centauri.

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    ...but I've never actually run the numbers. So, using your example, atmospheric gases by percentage:

    - Nitrogen - 78%
    - Oxygen - 21%
    - Argon - .916666...%
    - Other Gases - .05555...%
    - CO2 - .027777...%

    Percentage of CO2 by source

    * Water vapor - 95%
    * Natural sources - 2.669%
    * Respiration - 1.1634%
    * Mechanical Combustion - 1.1634%

    As a percentage of the whole atmosphere, the CO2 created by mechanical combustion is, let me see, 1.1634% of .027777% or .011 634 * .000 277 77 gives .000 003 231 6 or .000 323 16% of the atmosphere. CO2 created by mechanical combustion is less than 4 parts per million of atmospheric gases? In any other arena, this would be statistically insignificant!

    What's the source for your figures, Max? I found a site which says my percentages are a bit low, but agrees that humans cannot have a statistically significant effect on climate.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    Edit: format

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    as to the "relationship" whereby you list water vapour as a source of CO2.

    As for Maxwell's post, it is, as usual on this subject, a waste of good pixels. He should stick to US politics. Nitrogen, Oxygen (except for Ozone) and Argon are neutral to infra-red.

    The common greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs.

    Carbon dioxide is responsible for between 10% and 25% of the total greenhouse effect - the wide variation is because it varies with the water vapour contribution.

    You can bring out as many wonderful examples about the relatively small concentration of CO2 - such as Max's "Football Field" - but it's all trash. Misleading, at best mistaken but more likely deliberately dishonest.

    Neil

    Not that I'm accusing Max of being disingenuous.

    Oh, no. Not for a moment...

    Yet.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    95 percent of that last inch (25.4mm) is CO2 that comes from water vapor - that is, evaporation from oceans, lakes, rain water, and so on.

    He didn't provide a source.

    I don't argue climate change, Neil. I don't even argue the disproportionate effects of CO2 or methane as greenhouse gases. But I find it both arrogant and ignorant to attribute climate change solely to the actions of mankind and think it's disingenuous (at best) for people to argue that we can have an affect on such change by reducing atmospheric levels of a single contributor when we don't know all the interactions. I'll reiterate my position here: I think we should do what we can to reduce greenhouse gas generation and develop alternative fuels; I don't think we should bankrupt the world economy on the altar of CO2. And CO2 credit trading is spelled "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y."

    The Earth's climate has changed constantly over the 4+ billion years of the Earth's existence; man has been around for the last 1% or so of that existence. Given the recent attention paid to extracting climate data from ice packs and the fossil record, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear speculation that the Earth is actually returning to normal after an epoch of abnormally cool temperatures.

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    of the gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, we've slowly increased in last 150 years since the beginning of the industrial age to pumping out 8% of the total natural CO2 yearly MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, so in little over 10 years we pump out double the amount in existance. About a third is absorbed into the ocean so the remaining amount is not all we spew forth.

    It is quite simple: all that carbon was laid down in deposits, after periods that were much warmer. oil and coal are fossilized hydrogenated carbonaceous plant materials. Us putting it back in the atmosphere incredibly quickly by natural standards is setting up the atmosphere to the same times when there were steaming jungles covering the planet, and the US was split in two with the center covered by a shallow sea from the rockies to the appalacian mountains.

    Arrogant to think we affect the climate? Arrogant and self centered to think we DON'T when you look at the facts.

    We are increasing CO2 at a rate 10,000 times faster than any CO2 change in history. Which means we are affecting climate alot faster.

    At one time short sighted people also viewed the ocean as infinite. Large it is, but not infinite. And now the most remote reaches of the ocean for example have a high density of plastic bits floating in them, along with chemical contaminants.

    Bankrupt us? we will go bankrupt fighting wars started by people starving and who have run out of drinking water. We will likely loose much of our own fresh water for same reason and while we have the resources to pay for it, we won't like to. Esp since the water systems, typically run by govt entities have not invested money just to keep their pipes from leaking; pipes that were designed to last 50 years now have an average age of 54+ years.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    pipes in the ground don't draw a lot of attention.

    One of the biggest problems in Michigan is water treatment systems have not been updated and during a big storm, to much water enters the system. this causes an overflow and waste water is released into our rivers.

    Still waiting for the EPA to FORCE the cities to make better retention systems.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    I never said humans don't affect the environment. What I stated was:

    ...I find it both arrogant and ignorant to attribute climate change solely to the actions of mankind and think it's disingenuous (at best) for people to argue that we can have an affect on such change by reducing atmospheric levels of a single contributor when we don't know all the interactions. (emphasis added)

    Are you implying that humans are the only contributors to climate change? That we know all the factors contributing to climate change and all the interactions between those factors? That we are capable of having a significant effect on more than one or two of those factors? If so, that is the arrogance to which I refer.

    Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 cannot decrease without a wrenching (and most likely violent) change in our society and/or a corresponding decrease in the human population. Is that your wish?

    Edit: slepl

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You say that "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 cannot decrease without a wrenching (and most likely violent) change in our society".

    What is it about our environment and lifestyle that gives the CO2 production per annum, per person in the EU at a level of less than half of the US?

    Maybe you should ask us what we do or don't do. Most of the EU doesn't have any oil so we just don't have the habit of thinking it is cheap and inexhaustible.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    Were the population density of the US equal to that of most European countries, transit systems equivalent to those of Europe would be feasible. The United States has an average population density of 29.77 people per km2; the only European countries I have found with lower population densities are Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia. Outside the Balkans, the nearest western European country in population density is Ireland at 52.74 people per km2, well over half-again the density of the US.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_pop_den-geography-population-density

    The distances involved also have an effect, as do the attitudes. Can you imagine driving from Oxford, Southampton, or Cambridge to London and back daily? Americans will accept that 50- or 75-mile one-way commute. Many Americans view the automobile as the expression of their freedom (these are also usually those who merely aim their vehicle) and would not use transit systems if they were available. Others would use transit systems, but only if they were "affordable" and "convenient" with affordable meaning "what I'm willing to pay" and convenient meaning "when I want it there."

    And nobody wants a supermarket or bar close to their house. Yes, Neil, I know!

    Edit: stupid Enter key!

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The average mileage driven by a citizen of the US is only marginally greater than that driven by a European. That fact cost me a steak dinner for Maxwell - which I still intend to pay.

    Think again...

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    is the tendency of Americans to use vehicle size to make up for shortcomings in other areas... :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    We have cars, mainly little ones, and you have larger cars. What you have loads of, though, is minivans, SUVs and trucks. All of these have the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick but they do allow you to indulge your national pastime of moving big lumps of steel around.

    As far as I can find out, the average US engine size is in excess of 200 cubic inches for residential vehicles. The average size of a new UK car in 2007 was 1770cc which is 108 cubic inches. The figure is rising, though, which is INSANE!

    We use quite a few more efficient diesel cars and across the Channel they use more.

    Nuff said?

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    is that unless you live in a city with a million or two population, it is grossly under-utilized, and thus grossly inefficient.

    I can't count the number of times I've seen buses running around empty or with one or two people on them.

    Our small city has 6 bus routes. Average ridership is 71 people per day (and some of them are counted twice because they change buses). Average fuel usage is 635 gallons per day. That's almost 9 gallons per person per day!

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    ...making up for shortcomings... B-)

    Americans equate vehicle size with success-the larger the vehicle, the more successful you are. It's a peculiar psychology to which too many people fall victim: it's not what you are that matters, but what you appear to be. We laugh at Keeping Up Appearances, but there are more "boo-kays" in the US than Buckets.

    edit

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    I live in NJ, where mass transit is a joke.

    Unless you are going into Philadelphia or New York, it's less than useless.

    My commute takes me about an hour by car. If I used mass transit, I would need to take two trains, a bus and a taxi, would cost me about 50 dollars daily and take 4 hours.

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    Of course humans are not the ONLY cause of climate change. We've just overwhelmed the natural change factors by a vast factor, proportional to the amount of GHG we spew from hundreds of millions of cars and factories.

    It is the same arrogance and irrationalality you are showing to say: decreasing our CO2 emissions will destroy the economy, therefore global warming must be false. This seems to be the logic you are stating.

    I wish it wasn't so also. Rush limbaugh pulling facts out of his a** and others confusing cause with the cure doesn't stop the problem.

    It remains that:
    1) CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas in huge quantities.
    2) we have pumped more than double the original quantity into the atmosphere and continue to INCREASE the rate at which we spew this stuff
    3) every simulation and temperature correlation to emissions volume says we are changing the climate
    4) there are natural factors but the only large ones are feedback loops: i.e. we increase temperature with CO2 from cars, power plants and more CO2 ends up being emitted from melting permafrost and greenhouse gasses from huge methane hydrate deposits in the sea, plus melting ice now doesn't reflect sun's heat back to space.

    Having us reduce our emissions certainly will cost money. Those economies that emit the most are also the most able to afford it. At one point the power companies complained that the cost of emissions on coal plants would put them out of biz.

    Instead we reduced our acid rain problem greatly and incidence of lung disease which cost billions too.

    Similarly money spent reducing our pollution will likely reduce money spent 1) US sending aid overseas to feed starving people. 2) US spending money to fight wars caused by starving people. 3) reduced terrorism likely if it looks like we are doing something positive.

    4) reduced aid to our farmers and other countries to their own farmers when crops fail due to climate change (witness recent massive flooding that caused current rice crisis in indonesia and other places, drought that cut crop in australia...)

    Sure I'd like if we didn't have to do this. but in the end we'll have:
    economy not dependent on foreign energy sources nearly as much
    much more clean energy so certain cities are not the 'armpits of the country'
    more reliable energy grid if the 'future car' is like the 'skateboard car' where there is a no-moving-parts conversion of water+metal to produce the metal oxide plus free hydrogen to turn directly into electricity, then cars parked in driveways or garages can be used for peak power or even sole power source for remote cabins, etc. Without noise and pollution.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    It is the same arrogance and irrationalality you are showing to say: decreasing our CO2 emissions will destroy the economy, therefore global warming must be false. This seems to be the logic you are stating.

    I never even implied it.

    My succinctly expressed feelings on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/42x5ot
    I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to the contrary to affect my thoughts.

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    I read in Sci Am recently that we can with tweaked algae make gasoline out of water and the CO2 in the air. With the present price of petroleum, upsizing this process should be doable and only OPEC, Russia and a few other places should have a wrenching change in their societies.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    If you can get an algae that grows in sea-water, all you need is some suitable glass-sided tanks and sunlight. What a nice thing to do with all of the desert that you have.

    Stick a plant next to Las Vegas and and you can pipe the city's waste into it for nutrients.

    However, doing something on that scale requires a huge capital outlay. What's the incentive when you can grow corn to make alcohol and make good money?

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    My work requires that I drive an average 1000 miles every week; I have not received an increase in the mileage reimbursement rate since June 2007. I won't ask what you think about that; I suspect I'd get a literal response.

    The American vehicle culture MUST change; under the circumstances, there is no choice. However, the many (majority?) whose vehicle size reflects their sense of self-worth will not adapt easily. The expense of operating the "land yachts" will force the change. That change will most likely be violent (think "petrol wars").

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    But I find it both arrogant and ignorant to attribute climate change solely to the actions of mankind and think it's disingenuous (at best) for people to argue that we can have an affect on such change by reducing atmospheric levels of a single contributor when we don't know all the interactions.

    ... the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. All this talk of raising energy taxes and carbon credits is designed to control who is allowed to pump it into the atmosphere. It is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to put the non-elite people "into their proper place".

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    Too often the spoken desire to help masks the unspoken desire to rule.

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    I'm puzzled as to the "relationship" whereby you list water vapour as a source of CO2.

    ... the CO2 in a glass of carbonated water if it is left in the sun to evaporate?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Currently, the oceans are a nett sink of CO2, taking out more than they emit despite the increase in global temperature. That was the source of my puzzlement.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    of Dover,
    and marble, limestone deposits - under the whole state of florida, and mountain ranges globally are testimony to the ability of the oceans to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    Unhappily for us, this occurs over hundreds or thousands of years, and our overload of the atmosphere with CO2 causes more CO2 to enter the ocean. Going with the fizzy drink analogy, it is like the CO2 injectors in a cola factory that take water without CO2 and make it 'fizzy'

    and unhappily for coral reefs and diatoms that produce the bulk (70%) of the worlds oxygen, this same CO2 forms carbonic acid when dissolved in seawater, which then acidifies the ocean enuf that the shells of calcareous and silicaceous diatoms can't form.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    You need to focus on the thermal properties of each gas, especially their absorption/emission spectra, and that especially in the infrared band.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    I ran with the numbers that were given; that was all that was given. You're late. This party's over.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    But the messages are still here & the TR software (and its BIOS viruses) still allow me to reply.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    not least by mixing Imperial and Metric measurements. You could have kept it in hundredths of an inch, it would still have been bollocks.

    Pretty meaningless, Maxwell. Where did you get it from?

    OK, main point is that Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are not greenhouse gases and can be ignored as a contributor to warming or cooling the Earth.

    Out of that remainder, 0.678mm is CO2 from natural sources - volcanoes and other stuff from the earth.

    That leaves 0.591mm - just over one-half of one millimeter - which is CO2 produced by human (and other creature) activity.


    So, half of the CO2 is down to us? and half of that is due to fossil fuels? Not quite correct but close enough.

    Why bother?

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    (Disclaimer: When I say global warming and/or climate change, I mean human-caused and/or human-accelerated global warming and/or global cooling and/or alleged subsequent human-caused and/or human-accelerated climate-change - I mean whatever anyone claims we're causing.)

    Why the attempt at flinging an insult? (An attempt only, as I do not accept it - I refuse to take it, so it's still yours.) We can certainly agree to disagree, but to resort to such a thing is actually surprising to me - especially from you. Moreover, in one of your messages, you said that my own facts shot myself in the foot, but in another, you call me disingenuous for the way I presented them? Which is it, Neil?

    Disingenuous? Please, Neil, I deserve more credit than that. And who's really disingenuous?

    See my disclaimer. They (you know who they are) keep changing their claims and/or terms. That's what I call disingenuous.

    I seem to recall hoards of (so-called) experts who pointed to Hurricane Katrina as proof of man-caused climate-change, and that it would result in even more severe hurricane seasons; they even predicted that 2006 and 2007 would be worse than 2005. They were wrong; but they didn't admit it, did they? That's what I call disingenuous.

    They claimed that global warming would continue, but the average global temperature over the past ten years has actually dropped. That's what I call disingenuous.

    They claim that global cooling is caused by global warming. That's what I call disingenuous.

    There's one scientist who's a global warming advocate, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who, as you might recall, accused the Bush administration of trying to silence him - even though he advanced his global warming agenda in over 1500 speeches and presentations during that time. That's what I call disingenuous.

    All of these global warming and/or climate-change predictions are based on computer models. Yet, these computer models do not factor-in all possible variables - ALL possible variables, including the activity of the Sun. That's what I call disingenuous.

    In the 1980s, Al Gore called the internal combustion engine a bigger threat to mankind than a nuclear holocaust. That's what I call disingenuous.

    Speaking of Al Gore, consider the fictional (so-called) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To see a great percentage of our elementary schools showing An Inconvenient Truth to our kids and passing it off as fact. That's what I call disingenuous.

    For politicians to consider global warming and/or climate change a foregone conclusion in order to advance their own political aspirations. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To see the dominant media consider global warming and/or climate change a foregone conclusion. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To see the United Nations consider global warming and/or climate change a foregone conclusion. That's what I call disingenuous.

    The Kyoto Protocol. That's what I call disingenuous.

    I see an environmental movement that spends hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars trying to get other people to develop alternative sources of energy. Why don't they just spend that same money and effort to do it themselves? That's what I call disingenuous.

    To say that there's a consensus. That's what I call disingenuous.

    The radical environmentalists continually spout-off about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil; yet these are the very people who block production of known American oil reserves. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To think that the world economy is not driven by the use of oil. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To not consider balance between environmental and economic considerations. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To those who will take "economic considerations" and call it greed, but still criticize others when it's their wallet that feels the pinch. That's what I call disingenuous.

    These same radical environmentalists criticize the coal-burning power industry, but they block the construction of nuclear power plants. That's what I call disingenuous.

    They demonize "big oil" for high gasoline prices, yet the continually block construction of new refineries. That's what I call disingenuous.

    The biggest eco-advocates - the Hollywood types and politicians like Al Gore, Governor Terminator, and Prince Charles - who want other people to reduce their "carbon footprint", but yet they, themselves, emit hundreds of times more carbon emissions with their lavish lifestyles and private travel than the normal person. That's what I call disingenuous.

    But they buy Carbon Credits to make up for it (in Al Gore's case, from his own company). That's what I call disingenuous.

    I could go on and on and on and on and on and on ........ I could cite hundreds of examples of the disingenuousness of the global warming advocates. But I'll stop here.

    You're on the side of the disingenuous, Neil, not me.

    I'm not a smart scientist like you, Neil. I'm just some dumb American trying to figure out who to believe. And I choose to NOT believe those disingenuous people I just mentioned. However, I won't call you disingenuous - just fooled and misguided.

    Global Warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Not to worry, Neil, London will not flood (as global warming advocates claim) because of rising ocean levels. History will prove me right and you wrong. Too bad we won't be around for me to collect on that bet! (Now that would be one BIG steak.)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    But I would say that the original piece of work from which you cut the bulk your post most decidedly IS. As I said in my reply, the fact that the three main constituents do not affect infra-red radiation in any way rather removes the whole "gosh" effect of the piece. It removes any point whatsoever.

    You can do better. The post DID shoot itself in the foot.

    You can't do much worse.

    Your response to my post is a lot better in that you wrote it yourself. I'll try and address a few points. Please don't expect me to talk about Gore, though, as the man is a total arse and his film definitely IS disingenuous. Prince Charles is an arse, too - trust me in this. Governor T owns half a dozen Hummers and is a hypocritical arse. We have agreement here.

    The whole GW thing has been hijacked by radicals. In this I agree with you. It's now full of people who don't really understand and don't consider the balance between the cure and the disease and people are already suffering from the misguided acts of these people and it will get worse. In this I agree with you.

    I don't remember any experts talking about the Hurricane Season except in terms of sunspots and probabilities. The last couple of years was predicted to be bad because hurricanes go in cycles and - statistically - we were due for a couple more bad years. All of the science that I have read has not said that there will be more hurricanes because of GW. Check out NOAA (that's your hurricane people) and UKMET (that's ours) who both stated that 2005 was an EXCEPTIONAL year. It was, but not because of Katrina. Katrina was just another hurricane that happened to hit a city built in a stupid place.

    Most of the evidence for GW comes from peer-review scientific papers. unfortunately in this current political climate (PI), peer review in climate science should be taken with a pinch of salt. I would agree with you that the climate science peer review process has been abused and that the reviewing process is incestuous. The main popular scientific journals (Nature, Scientific American, etc.) have declared their bias by pronouncing the science as settled. Hey, agreement!

    I don't know James Hansen so I've had to Google him. Nice bit of publicity he got for himself by his "gagging" claims. Writes books, doesn't he? Hmmm. he's an arse. Agreement again.

    I could go on agreeing with you or I could pull out an equally large bunch of lying bastards and dubioous statistics from the "denier" side of the tracks. However it's a sunny morning and I'm going for a hike.

    Neil

    p.s. Global Warming is NOT the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Religion beats GW hands down.

    Not that GW and GW denial aren't taking on all of the trappings of a religion.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    I hope you enjoyed your hike. Sun block?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    as you well know, Abs. Rust-proofing is more appropriate!

    The hike was terrific. I did about fifteen miles across the North Downs, a range of sub-1000ft hills near my home, and stopped at the Botley Hill Farmhouse pub for a pint (or two) during the trip.

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    One of your oft-repeated statements is that "there is no consensus". You provide no proof of this other than the names of single scientists who hold anti-GW views.

    I can't find any definitive evidence to the contrary, either, other than this that I ran across the other day.

    http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/

    Read into it what you will.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    There are plenty of global warming skeptics, those of the scientific flavor and otherwise. I also believe that the most vocal of the global warming advocates are of the non-scientific variety. What does that say?

    I've named no fewer than four or five over the course of these discussions, including:

    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama.

    Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT.

    William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

    Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

    Of course, when a person (around here) can't debate their argument, they've resorted to finding something to discredit the person.

    Do a Web search for Global Warming skeptics, and you'll get plenty of hits.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    applies to seeking out skeptics and supporters in that I have no real knowledge of the professional status of the key players. Google doesn't really tell me that unless I really dig through and I've had so many dead-ends when researching US academics.

    What makes it difficult when I'm dealing with US scientists as the term "Professor" doesn't mean the same over there as it does here. A Professor in a UK university will be the head of a department and the title of Professor is a legal title. Generally, if a Professor says something in the UK, I listen.

    In the US, a Professor could be a Junior Lecturer and I wouldn't necessarily take the time from one of them without checking my watch. For this reason, I tend to stick with UK academics as I can assess their academic standing straight off.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You find a reason to discredit and/or ignore them. The real reason, however, is that ..... well, we know the real reason.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I did all that I'm prepared to do. You, on the other hand, do not appear EVER to have addressed those scientists who DO support the IPCC. I would hazard a guess that you can't name a single prominent, internationally recognised climatologist who is a supporter of the IPCC.

    I believe that you have let your particular political views affect your reasoning powers. Because combating Anthropogenic Global Warming requires a major shift in attitudes and significant social change, it is something that will only be successful if imposed by governments. You just can't accept that so you rubbish the cause. Like you, I believe that Al Gore is a hypocritical, publicity seeking sh:t of a failed politician who will do ANYTHING for a little power. Unlike you, I am not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

    As for your list, all I can say is that for every skeptic you find, I can produce a dozen names of climatologist who DO believe that the IPCC has it nearly right.

    We had a discussion on William Gray in another thread. I gave you my opinion that the good Professor was making an awful lot of fuss about nothing with his complaints of "gagging". I also pointed out that he was a meteorologist and not a climatologist.

    Richard Lindzen appeared on UK Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle". That documentary was every bit as biased and flawed as anything Gore has said and done. Lindzen lost credibility with me for that.

    Fred Singer doesn't believe that second hand smoke is harmful. The man is an arse.

    Roy Spencer is a supporter of Intelligent Design. I've known about Roy Spencer for years. The man is a total arse.

    "well, we know the real reason"

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Okay, Neil. You set the rules for disqualification from having a valid opinion and/or argument. Let's run with that.

    If Richard Lindzen lost credibility because he appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, AND, according to you, that documentary was every bit as biased and flawed as anything Gore has done, such as An Inconvenient Truth, we should therefore disqualify anyone and everyone who had anything to do with either project - anyone who appeared, provided opinion, consulted, was interviewed, etc. - skeptics and advocates alike.

    You disqualified Fred Singer because he doesn't believe second hand smoke is harmful and that the man is an arse. Okay, let's further disqualify any and all people who've ventured outside their area of expertise to offer an opinion on some issue - regardless of the original context. Anyone who's said anything that other people find disagreeable and/or outrageous is hereby disqualified - skeptics and advocates alike.

    You said that Roy Spencer is a supporter of Intelligent Design ..... and that the man is a total arse. I wonder, why is Singer an arse, but Spencer is a total arse? What's the difference? Nonetheless, anyone who believes in Intelligent Design, and/or God, and/or anything even resembling creationism, regardless of the faith that person is affiliated with - Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever - anyone who simply believes in a higher power and/or creation of the universe by any means other than pure accident and coincidence is hereby disqualified - skeptics and advocates alike.

    Oh, and anyone who is either an arse or a total arse is also hereby disqualified - skeptics and advocates alike.

    So far, Neil, I might guess that upwards of 95 percent - maybe more - of the "qualified experts" (whoever they really are) should, according to your criteria, all be disqualified from voicing an opinion on the issue - skeptics and advocates alike.

    And from what I understand, Dr. William Gray is indeed a climatoligist, at least that's how he's often referred. But I'm sure he falls into one of the categories listed above, so you'll disqualify him nonetheless.

    But we'll go ahead and disqualify any and all meteorologist - skeptics and advocates alike. But I'm a bit confused about something. It sounds as though you might define all climatologist as also being meteorologist, but not all meteorologist are climatologist. Is that right, Neil? Or is it always one or the other, but never both?

    Speaking of Al Gore, whom you described as a hypocritical, publicity seeking sh:t of a failed politician who will do ANYTHING for a little power, and you called his documentary biased and flawed, he certainly didn't deserve that Nobel Prize he was awarded, primarily because of that documentary. We should therefore question the Nobel Committee, and disqualify anyone and/or anything associated with the awarding of that prize, which would also disqualify the IPCC, don't you think? You did, after all, suggest that we should disqualify people simply because of association, didn't you?

    Speaking of the IPCC, let's look at a list of those folks. Do you have one handy? If you do, please post the names, titles, qualifications, beliefs, outrageous statements, arse rating, etc., so we can properly qualify and/or disqualify those folks based on the criteria you initially established.

    Really, Neil. Do you have a list of the people who make-up the IPCC? I'd love to see it.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    Sorry there Neil, but that was funny.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Glad you liked it!

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    After you, sir.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    attack the source, not the information provided by the source.

    The only thing missing was "I bet he listens to Rush"..... Meant as the greatest of insults.... by some.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    and I can't change the fact that Max's choice of supporters for his cause don't fill me with confidence.

    Who is Rush?

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    that you have never heard of Rush Limbaugh?

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

    that just seems so unlikely? Or just not on first name terms with him?

    You have heard the saying "Ditto heads"?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I had heard the name but had no idea whatsoever what he did or in what sphere - TV, politics, etc - he operated. Radio, it would seem. I only listen to BBC Radio 4 so I'm never likely to hear him unless he gets a part in The Archers.

    Trust me, I'm from around here and not from over there.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    Rush is a Conservative, um, opinionist, I guess would be the best word.

    While the weak minded and foolish will call him a mouthpiece for the Republicans, I have heard him MANY times chastise the Republicans for NOT doing what they should be doing. He has been VERY critical of Bush on many fronts.

    He is also fond of referring to President Clinton's presidential library as the Clinton library and massage parlor. ;\

    In the liberal weenie circles, it is quickly thrown out as an insult if you don't STFU and do as they say that you're a "ditto head" as if listening to Rush invalidates you.

    Liberals are great fans of freedom of speech, but only if it is speech that they agree with, as witnessed by attempts to make it a CRIME to be a "Global Warming Denier".

    A scary prospect that they would seek to use that as a route to push their political agenda of global warming. Is there any wonder many of us don't buy into it?

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    but I prefer Glen Beck. Neither is a perfect match though.

    Unfortunately, the Republican party is becoming like McCain and Schwarzenegger, and it's going to take a lot to push it back toward conservatism.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    Just stating that simpletons like to throw that around as what they see as an insult. They can't touch his message, so they viciously attack the person. Again, very typical reaction from the Liberals that advocate free speach, as long as it is something they agree with, then it is to be silenced at all costs. Conservatives WANT liberals to get their message out because the more people that hear it, the more that can see just how insane the majority of the liberal positions are.

    Both Beck and Rush have their places, as does Hannity.

    They make good points, but often in different areas.

    I have rarely disagreed with Hannity.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    There are plenty of global warming skeptics, those of the scientific flavor and otherwise. I also believe that the most vocal of the global warming advocates are of the non-scientific variety. What does that say?

    It says that you base your belief, not on logic and facts, but the volume at which they're stated.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    Stop basing your counterarguments on "the most vocal" and construct some new ones, based on the most rigorous science.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    "As we all know..."

    is not the basis for any sort of science.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    I have no objection to discussing "bandwagoning" whenever it is appropriate. In any case that you or maxwell or the rest of your aliases can demonstrate that phenomenon in the realm of published scientific research, you'll find me admirably receptive to valid critique. But all that you, maxwell, Tony and jd have demonstrated so far is your own group-think assumption that climate science is the product of group-think, based only on the fact that a consensus exists on the essence of the theory of anthropomorphic global warming, with less substantive, professional-grade dissent than you wish to believe. The ability to spell and define ipso hoc, ipso propter hoc, et al. [sp?] does not exempt you from supporting your own assertions with the relevant facts, which are in the subjects of thermodynamics, optics, organic chemistry, biochemistry, and geology, and that's just getting warmed up. Politics and pop psychology are child's play. When you boys are ready for the big leagues, I'll take your proclamations on science as seriously as you wish. Until then, I'll take your proclamations as seriously as they warrant. TS.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    If I weren't so busy studying how to suction vomitus, I'd give your present effort a try.

    For now, I have just a question with respect to your phrase, "proclamation on science".

    Do you mean their take on this or that result "of" current science, or do you actually mean "on" science, as in big-league Scientia?

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

    An imperfect theory is preferable to none at all. An imperfect theory of relativity, for example, is sufficient for very popular GPS technology. I hear it's as effective as it needs to be, for civilian applications anyway.

    http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=263796&messageID=2509641

    All global warming and/or climate change claims and predictions are all based on projections attained by computer models. None have accurately predicted anything over the past twenty years; in fact, all of the predictions have been wrong.

    I honestly have not checked yet how Dr. Gray's predictions stack up against this unusually destructive storm season, but I'd love to discuss the accuracy of his models with you.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    His specialty is hurricanes, of which we have had exactly none this year. What's to discuss?

    Getting out of the corner?

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    Too bad Dr. Gray's expertise is so limited. That would have been a fascinating sub-thread.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    1. me: Stop basing your counterarguments on "the most vocal"...

    2. Locrian_Lyric: discussing the logical fallacy of bandwagoning is legitimate
    "As we all know..." is not the basis for any sort of science.


    3. I replied: I have no objection to discussing "bandwagoning" whenever it is appropriate.

    I should have phrased that:
    I'm willing to discuss "bandwagoning" whenever that phenomenon is demonstrated. Until you can refute the physical premises of the so-called "global warming alarmists" you cannot logically support any claim that anyone has reacted excessively to anthropogenic global warming.

    "As we all know..." is likewise not the basis for any sort of logical rebuttal, of anything.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    As are the 'consensus' crowd.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    No? OK. Whatever...

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    not being a smarta$$ here, just would like to know what you'd like me to expand on.

    Lyseknkoism refers to the Soviet politicization of science where 'party' scientists were elevated above all others because they had the 'consensus' of the party.

    Every time I hear the word 'consensus' with science, I get very very nervous.

    They've tried to dismiss the link between vaccinations and autism because of a similar 'consensus'.

    When the word 'consensus' is tossed around about science, it is essentially saying 'okay, debate over'.

    This ignores the fact that much scientific discovery has overturned previous consensus from Geo-centrist theory to the theory that germs spontaneously emerge from nothing.

    Einstein challanged Newton's laws of natural motion, thus upsetting the applecart of consensus on that one. Others have challanged Einstein's theories.

    This is a GOOD THING(tm)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    is a genetic doctrine formulated by Lysenko asserting that acquired characteristics are inheritable. It's about sixty years old, discounted and somewhat puzzling to me why you should bring it up!

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Geocentric theory, germs spontaneously emerge from nothing, Lysenkoism, Newton getting trashed by Einstein... All good stuff! A bit old hat, though.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that we shouldn't accept ANYTHING until absolute proof positive is provided and even then we should disbelieve it because the more scientists agree, the more likely they are to be wrong. Or actually not "scientists agree" but "scientists seem to agree" because it's all an international conspiracy headed up by Al Gore and The Communist United Nations to suppress the Freedom of the Murrican people to carry on WASTING STUFF.

    Neil :)

    p.s. Just because Newton didn't know about the behaviour of objects at speeds approaching c doesn't mean that Einstein "challenged" Newton. To believe that displays an extremely shallow knowledge of the History of Physics. I'd argue the point with you but I'm not sure how simple I'd have to go to start. Enough to say that once Einstein applied his theory that space is curved, Newton's laws fit right back and explain the precession of Mercury. Newton would have been happy, Einstein was happy but you just want to score points. That one missed the target!

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    no need to bother.

    You're spoiling for a fight, and I'm in no mood for one.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Einstein and Newton are disqualified as reputable and legitimate scientists. They both believed in a higher power and/or God - both synonymous with Intelligent Design, you know.

    (See previous comments by Neil and me for context.)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Trust me in this, Maxwell, Intelligent Design and God don't fit very well together. "Synonymous" is not the word that I would use. I have no problems at all with religious scientists so long as they keep their faith out of results and conclusions drawn - and most of them do. By all means work, if you wish, towards proof of anything but just do it honestly and that's OK by me.

    Intelligent Design is NOT honest. God would not like it (if I am to believe what people tell me about their pet imaginary being and apply a certain level of consistency). God doesn't NEED people to lie and cheat for Him.

    As for Newton, he was the product of his time: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

    Why should I have a problem with that?

    Einstein? His views varied but I have always reckoned that he was on the side of the Good Guys. "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

    Anyway, trying to use either of these major historical figures to score petty points in a little argument about science and especially setting them up as some sort of rivals is just so bad that it's almost a Godwin's Law censure!

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Are you going to make me look-up that Intelligent Design discussion (1,000+ messages!) and point to your message in which you said that Intelligent Design was really a smoke-screen and/or code-word for Creationism? If A equals B, then B must also equal A.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    is giving me a nosebleed.

    Not all religious people subscribe to Creationism, you know. The Pope is happy with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as is the ArchBishop of Canterbury. It's only the Reverend Mouthfrother of the Southern Baptist Convention who believes that the Earth is 6012 years old next October. Now HIM I have a problem with!

    Neil

    p.s. Have as much fun as you like. I'll fight my corner and fight dirty...

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    "... Intelligent Design and God don't fit very well together.

    Intelligent Design is NOT honest. God would not like it (if I am to believe what people tell me about their pet imaginary being and apply a certain level of consistency). God doesn't NEED people to lie and cheat for Him."

    I think you are quite correct here, with the exception of that pet imaginary being bit. ID and Creation as put forth in Genesis are not synonymous, evolution in any sense used by any group is not Biblical, and God would, I presume, given all that is propounded in the Bible, not at all appreciate that people 'lie and cheat for Him'. Quite the opposite I should think.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... disqualified my skeptical climatologist/scientist, Roy Spencer, simply on the grounds that he believed in Intelligent Design (and because he?s a arse), it might be fitting for you to qualify that comment.

    Do you consider Dr. Spencer more in-line with The Pope and the ArchBishop of Canterbury, happy with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory? Or is he one of your Mouthfrothers of the Southern Baptist Convention who believes that the Earth is 6012 years old next October?

    No guesses. Please provide proof of his beliefs if you choose to cite them as a reason for disqualification.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Spencer said, "I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism...".

    I say "How can you believe the science of someone who doesn't even believe in evolution?". That is my viewpoint. Live with it.

    Spencer and his Intelligent Design, perhaps not deliberately, seem to give support to the view that scientific results are simply a function of ideology. I HATE that. It devalues everything that is done by ANY scientist. Does this mean that science is simply irrelevant to debates, other than a vehicle for ideology? This would be such a bad outcome because science does matter for setting policy. But to use science properly, you HAVE to believe it!

    You may consider that I'm being a bit irrational about ID - I think I've given ID as much credibility as it deserves - but live with it. Find another champion for your cause because I do not like the company that Spencer keeps and he just won't cut it with me.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    So you have a problem with Roy Spencer because, the way you interpret it, his scientific results are simply (or might be) a function of (his religious) ideology? How about those who spin scientific results to suit their political ideology (or are led by their political ideology to draw a certain scientific conclusion)? You have problems with the former; I have problems with the latter.

    Like I?ve said a gazillion times, Global Warming/Climate change IS NOT a scientific issue, it?s a political (ideology) issue.

    I don?t care about your views on ID. I care about the politicization of science.

    To answer another question you asked in a previous message, when you asked me to name one prominent scientist who DID agree with the notion of man-assisted global warming and/or climate change, and you ventured to guess that I couldn?t name even one. I have named James Hansen, so I could name one. But I?m scratching my head to name another ? WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT!

    Politicians, eco-nuts in the entertainment industry, news anchors, news reporters, newspaper editors, political pundits, teachers (not the professor-type teachers), school administrators, college professors (the non-qualified types), and more recently, advertisers to sell their ?green? products, all spout-off about global warming and/or climate change, but not ONE of them could probably answer your question. That?s my point. I do not hear reputable scientists speaking out ? just those who claim there?s a consensus. (And I even listen to Air America and NPR, and I read the New York Times!)

    Go ahead, Neil, YOU name the scientists who are spearheading the Global Warming/Climate change movement ? the ones at the IPCC. Please, name them ? and qualify them! They?re the ones you (and your scientists) support, but who are they? (Heck, I've asked you three or four times! It shouldn't be a hard question to answer.)

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    It is okay to put Atheistic existentialism in the results column, even better if it's atheistic Nihilism.

    Don't you DARE put a theistic belief in that column, or you are in trouble.

    Let's all recite the far-left mantra.

    "You have no right to force your beliefs on me. Now shut-up and believe this."

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    belief that "life comes from life", held in opposition to the "spontaneous generation" theory that was prevalent in his day seems to have made him something of a hero to the anti-Darwin crowd over at Answeringgenesis.org. They state that this belief puts him in opposition with his contemporary, Darwin, who (of course) they hate. "Strong opponent of Darwin's theory", they trumpet.

    It just ain't so.

    I challenge you to find a single reference where Pasteur directly referenced Darwin in a critical vein. Actually, don't bother. He didn't. Both are scientific greats and AGAIN you're trying to score points with them and missing the mark.

    Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin. who is next?

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    Here are two Canadian "scientists" with opposing opinions. What have we provem here, that even scientist argue the matter?

    Against the GW theory:
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

    For the GS theory:
    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/

    Scientists in this list, former and current scientists, all have different views on the issue, ranging from those who: "Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased, "Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate", "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes", "Believe cause of global warming is unknown and" there are even some who "Believe global warming will benefit human society".

    What does this all illustrate, that "scientists" around the globe are still in disagreement over the causes and effects of GW and if/how man has contributed to it.

    I am not sure what is to be determined one way or another on this thread, the end result is some people believe and care that our emissions effect our environment (or contribute to GW) and some do not care about thier emissions, thier carbon footprint or the atmosphere.

    If the atmosphere is a questionable issue, and NOBODY really knows either way, including yourself or I, why must we focus on possibility when we can focus on facts instead?

    Our emissions harm US and other life forms on Earth every single day. This is 100% undeniable fact.

    So if THAT not a good enough reason to seek more efficient, renewable fuels?

    Or should we be having a discussion on whether or not oil is a renewable resource and whether or not we need to seek better resources from a renewable supply that doesn't have as harmful of an effect on us and the world around us?


    You constantly mention that this is a political issue, but if you remove the questions and possibilities and simply focus on the facts, it quickly becomes an environmental issue again.

    WE can't breathe Carbon Monoxide because it is poisonous, our emissions are rife with Carbon Monoxide.

    So why not focus on reality instead, nothing political about human health facts.

    We need to reduce our carbon footprint to save our own health.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    I found most intriguing the contrast between Dr. Suzuki's insistence that climate change is caused by CO2 and the essentially level line on his atmospheric CO2 graph during the Little Ice Age period between about 1400 and 1850.

    Edit: clarify

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    ... confuse your right to your own beliefs with a right to your own facts. Who do you think you are quoting?

    Let's all recite the far-left mantra. "You have no right to force your beliefs on me. Now shut-up and believe this."

    In reality, nobody fits that description better than the Chicken Little lobbyists of the military-industrial complex and their slaves in Congress, who have been allocating more budget to the Pentagon than it requests, for decades. Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes and Donald Rumsfeld have claimed that anti-ballistic missiles are important to the national defense. They're wrong, and they're not entitled to their own facts. That kind of waste makes all expenditures related to global warming look like chump change. So, why do you care about global warming, and not military waste?

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    "You have no right to force your beliefs on me. Now shut-up and believe this."

    Too funny.

    But you get a Boo! anyway because it's not in the correct column.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I see the graph as somewhat scattered but still inline with previous centuries. Was there a point made about the Little Ice Age and how it was caused or something? I didn' tthink he had equated that to CO2 concentration, unless you are on that bandwagon that thinks people are trying to say that man has causes climate change?

    I think that he is inferring that CO2 is ONE OF THE GASES that contribute to climate change. I don't remeber him referring to teh Little Ice age or attributing THAT climate change to CO2 levels.

    I think perhaps you are feeling that everyone says that CO2 is the cause of climate change. They are not.

    CO2 is ONE gas in our atmosphere that has been attributed to causing rapid climate change, this does not mean that it is solely responsible for all past changes in the Earth's climate. Such an increase in CO2 is being attributed ot the rapid speed at which teh climate is and will change, it is an abnormality, not to be compared with the natural evolution of Earth.

    Text that accompanies the article and graphic:

    The pollutants we pump into our atmosphere are changing its composition and preventing heat from escaping the earth?s surface. Today's atmosphere contains 32 per cent more carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, than at the start of the industrial era. {seems like uncontestible fact to me}

    The result is climate change: altered long-term weather patterns. Global warming, a rise in the average global temperature, is one measure of climate change. And it has already begun - global average temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, and the northern hemisphere is substantially warmer than at any point during the past 1000 years.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    That's what I call disingenuous. The biggest eco-advocates - the Hollywood types and politicians like Al Gore, Governor Terminator, and Prince Charles - who want other people to reduce their "carbon footprint", but yet they, themselves, emit hundreds of times more carbon emissions with their lavish lifestyles and private travel than the normal person. That's what I call disingenuous. But they buy Carbon Credits to make up for it (in Al Gore's case, from his own company).

    Your argument, still, is based on nothing but collectivist envy of "lavish lifestyles" and distrust of scientists who possess the knowledge and diligence to understand what is beyond your ability.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    These, ah, "scientists" -- their knowledge and diligence automatically entitles them to the grand office of Understander?

    And the work, strictly and thoroughly scientific as later, and still later review may or may not reveal, confers automatically on such a worker the ennoblement of Scientist?

    You would leave it all to the self-appointed?

    Are you?

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    'the'. Definite article, both limits and consummates? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    etu

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    Once put, it begs to be relieved of duty.

    You ask of one who does his part, remember.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    ...seeing the new animation. Is that how Soni, lemonade, and summer affect you? Or, have you tripped on to something?

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    with the music. :)

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    retract that.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    More that I watch. The whole thing is like an ethos.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    <chuckles>

    edit title

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    emanates Music.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    It's why I restrict so much to one or two or three. Lord knows, there are so many.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    http://www.google.com/search?q=logorrhegia
    <br><br>
    Lack of previous usage, anywhere, plus your <strike>demonstrated "difficulties"</strike> stated "struggle" with words, suggests that you mean to imply a GI, having the real affliction "logorrhea" [add: or, perhaps, that you suffer the affliction, like Ebenezer Scrooge, as a result of gastrointestinal issues?]

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    and no text down here.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    a something related to both the content of 'Left to' and the answer to 'Question please'.

    +
    0 Votes
    Jaqui

    it also includes plastics and other "hydrocarbon" based products going into the landfills.

    you know, those things that do not bio-degrade for centuries, if at all.

    global warming / climate change / climate shift is not only affected by CO2, there are many other items we spew out from smokestacks that are just as bad in their own way, those all fall into that 2 inch other gases category.

    some of those other gases are ozone destroying products. with the ozone layer being damaged, the effect of solar radiation on the planet is increased. I'm sure you hve noticed how it is so easy to get a sunburn now, without applying some fairly strong sunscreen. That is caused by the increase of effect from solar radiation.
    More solar "heat" getting in, combined with less heat escaping from even minutely higher levels of CO2 is something o be concerned about.

    Kim Stanley Robinson actually has a pretty good overview of the science behind the issues in His Mars Trilogy.
    Red Mars http://preview.tinyurl.com/5ezdxm [Amazon.com link ]
    Green Mars http://preview.tinyurl.com/656uyo [ Amazon.com link ]
    Blue Mars http://preview.tinyurl.com/6n7dnw [ Amazon.com link ]

    If there was some way for us to reverse the damage we have done to the ozone layer from leaking refrigerators, space launches, exploding transformers .. then the CO2 levels wouldn't be an issue.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    that at the rate the rainforests are disappearing, the planets capacity to manage CO2 can't help but be effected, no matter how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere or by whom.

    http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    that large tracts of rainforest are being cleared so that oil palm can be planted for biofuel.

    Aaagh! :_|

    You couldn't make it up!

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    of the centuries worth of lack of foresight exhibited by certain categories of humans. You, or I, or others here couldn't make it up, but they sure can and do.

    +
    0 Votes
    firstmt001

    Welcome to the CO2 calculator. Find out what your carbon footprint is and how you can make some simple changes to help tackle climate change. ...
    __________________________
    Josie Smith
    I challenge you to a game of trivia! Click here to battle against me online at ConQUIZtador. Let's see who's the winner... <a href="http://www.conquiztador.com/">http://www.conquiztador.com/a

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Who has a list of the people who make up the IPCC? Who are they? What are their titles? What is their level of education? What is their area of expertise? What are their qualifications?

    From the IPCC Web site:

    The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of ...... The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.

    Who are these scientists?

    Specific answers only, please - names, country of origin, titles, and qualifications.

    Segue from this message.....

    http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=263796&messageID=2500655

    .....since the maximum level was reached.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    http://www.ipcc-data.org/
    "Welcome to the Data Distribution Centre (DDC) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The DDC offers access to baseline and scenario data for representing the evolution of climatic, socio-economic, and other environmental conditions."

    You don't like their climate models? If your complaints have any validity, that validity is based on what you know to be missing from their models, and therefore you can make a better one. So, why don't you?

    Lack of wherewithal, and plain pig-headed ignorance.

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    I wonder which is more dangerous, the CO2 or the Hg?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    of waiting for the damn things to get up to full illumination! That is dangerous!

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    everyone is in such a damn hurry all the time.

    Heck, we are to the point where microwave popcorn takes to long.

    Chill. Go for a nice walk. By the time you come back you lights will be ready! B-)

    About 90% of all my lightbulbs are the funny spirals. The ones that aren't are because they are on faders or the spiral is to big for the fixture.

    international light bulb question. We are on a 120w system, while many places are 220w. What do your light bulbs run?

    For us, a softer glow for a living room is a nice 65 or 75 watt, while for reading or whatever, a nice 100 watt.

    What is the unit of measure in the UK?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    using standard filament bulbs. The low-energy bulbs that I have are 15-20 watts (I hate the bloody things) and I have a load of 25 watt halogens in my kitchen but there are six of them so that adds up to a lot.

    In my defence, I like it bright so I don't chop my fingers off!



    Hopefully they will improve on the low-energy bulbs so that the start-up time is reduced. filament bulbs will be banned in the UK within a few years!

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    filament bulbs will be banned in the UK within a few years

    Your furnace will run slightly more in winter :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    So hopefully that will offset it.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    only criminals will have them! :0

    Oh, the humanity..... ;\


    Will this be before or after the whole Mercury deal is sorted out?

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    100 watt filament bulbs, and hide them deep within the bowels of the basement.

    For the most part I use those flourescents, but they just don't cut it for reading. How many bulbs do you think I need to get through 50 +/- years of reading?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    It's enough for them to tinker with the edges of the problem, banning lightbulbs and supermarket plastic bags.

    According to our government - and who am I to disbelieve them - three times the amount of mercury that is contained within the fluorescent bulb is released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal to provide the extra electricity needed to power an incandescent.

    The greening of Britain is starting to provide some wonderful opportunities for jobsworth (does that term translate?) gits to run riot. People have been fined for leaving their trash bin lids two inches ajar, one old boy has been tagged as a repeat recycling offender for placing cabbage stalks in "the wrong bin".

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    'Off with his head!'

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    no, does not translate over.

    I do know that in California, they BAN the mowing of lawns on high smog days.

    Next will be the banning of ALL lawn mowers that have a gas powered engine, but I don't know ANYONE that doesn't have one, no matter how big of a liberal weenie they are.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    "off wi 'is 'ed, wott not?"


    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    overly suggestive JD.
    "I don't know ANYONE that doesn't have one, no matter how big of a liberal weenie they are."

    Bizarre visions dancing through my head.
    No, I'm not sharing. They're mine, all mine.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    A low ranking official, particularly in local or central government service, who follows their instructions and procedures to the letter. They seem to do it just to **** you off and increase their own sense of worth within the structure. I believe that the closest US is "Company man".

    Something along the lines of "F*cking jobswoth gave me a ticket because I was parked an inch over the line".


    Term derives from the jobsworth mantra "I can't let you do that, it's more than my job's worth".

    Neil

    Information provided free of charge by NITS(tm) because I'm sure that the gits aren't unique to the UK.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    They told us that MTBE would be a great thing too.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    We call them nit-picking bureaucrats.

    edited

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    when they are used not just for light bulb use but as SPACE HEATERS!

    they output 90% heat. If you have a huge house in a cold climate in the winter, it can be way more efficient to simply turn on alot of lights in a room you are inhabiting at the moment than heating your entire house, including rooms where you are not.

    The mercury is there but it is a tiny amount in the flourescent bulbs.

    and LED lights are even more efficient. YOu can now buy them but they tend to be more expensive and light output low. I think there was a place deals extreme that has them pretty reasonable.

    I also use a heat lamp in the bathroom. I leave it on for a while after a shower, drys out the room and keeps towels I have hung up from becoming mildewed. They are filament type bulbs.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    -Florescent lights cause some sensory problems with me due to the autism

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    is AFFORDABLE LED Christmas lights.

    Right now, a strand of 50 costs about $20 USD. Clearly I would NEVER buy these for cost savings on energy use.

    I like the idea of them not putting out HEAT, but not at that price.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    Deadly carcinogen added to gasoline in NJ as an oxygenating agent and mandated by the NJ Dept of environmental protection.

    The groundwater and well contamination from that was atrocious and we are STILL cleaning it up.

    We may have poisoned our drinking water, but at least the air is marginally cleaner.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    The actual volume of CO2 or percentage to other gases today in the atmosphere is irrelevant. CO2 is a trace gas, it is not a key component of the Atmosphere and varies in its density (when compared to other gases) a great deal. Therefore judging the ratio of the total composition of the Atmosphere with the trace amount of CO2 it shares is irrelevant, unless you are ready to accept that fractions of a percentage are worthy of evaluating. CO2 is best measured by PPM in the atmosphere (not relative inches on a football field).

    The CHANGE in that ppm is the focus.

    So the oceans warm by a degree here and there, but it takes only a couple of degrees in change to have disastrous effects.

    Whether something incorporates 0.0000000001% of a total volume, or not, doesn't matter, it?s the most finite change in that percentage that is the problem.

    So let?s say we take our miniscule amount of CO2 that we add to the atmosphere and increase it by 10%, is that not enough to cause imbalance? No matter how small the total percentage compared to other atmospheric gases is concerned?

    Sorry, but your analogy just seems like junk science.

    To conclude your scientific example:
    If it is only a tiny percentage and we only add an even smaller percentage, how can it be detrimental?

    Also you have failed to include other gases that contribute to global warming, CO2 isn't the only one; you have also failed to consider that many gases break down at high altitude and become other gases.

    Take Hydrocarbons for example, they break down into relatively harmless gases at very high altitude, except ONE of those gases is also CO2, so then we must add hydrocarbons to the list of dangerous gases too, but then that Co2 actually does break down at even high pressures, and so on.

    Unless you can tell me exactly what percentage of CO2 will topple the imbalance out of control, then I can't accept such a simple minded analogy.
    Can I tell you? No, I didn't get THAT far into alternate fuels and air care (well I think I did but it was a lot to take in at the time), but I am sure many scientists can, such as David Suzuki, perhaps a question to pose to him if he would ever stop for 5 minutes.

    Some facts though:
    Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. That?s quite an increase compared to the miniscule amount it would have been, perhaps less than a millimetre on your football field.

    Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.

    Natural warming and cooling: So we have ascertained that CO2 is a factor in the global cycle of warming and cooling. If we add to that by a percentage of say 25% every hundred or so years, how are we NOT increasing the effects of global warming on the planet?

    You are either discounting the fact that we increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere or you are discounting the fact that CO2 contributes to global warming.

    So which side of the coin do we like?
    One reduces emissions and harmful gases at street level as well as in the atmosphere. The other turns a blind eye and plays dumb.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    So you are obviously NOT religious, do not believe in a God of any sort then either; otherwise your post is pure hypocrisy.

    There are no 'facts' to the contrary, so why is it so hard for you to stomachs a reasonable theory BASED on fact?

    Here's a FACT for you: In 1986 they (the USA, France and Russia) drilled a 2 mile deep core sample of ice. That core sample shows exactly how the ice had changed through the various natural warming and cooling processes over Earth's time for the last 400, 000 years.
    FACT, not speculation, but geophysical science.
    Each time there was a massive climate change there was an increase in the CO2 bubbles in the ice, so much so that the air would have been literally toxic. The more recent layers in that same core were incredibly close together, indicating quite clearly that the natural process the Earth once took had been increased a great deal since the industrial age. So while you may feel that it is purely speculation, it can be seen and has been documented over 2 decades ago that CO2 DOES in FACT contribute to or cause the greenhouse effect. It is also FACT that the greenhouse effect is responsible for climate change. Besides smacking you in the head repeatedly with a hammer, I am not sure what it would take to get the point through to you.

    Here's another fact for you, inhaling CO WILL kill you, DEAD NO MORE EVERYONE WHO MATTERS. CO, is a byproduct of the combustion engine's cycle. So the fact is vehicle emissions are harming us humans TODAY.

    So if a reduction in CO emissions helps us (again pure FACT) and everything scientific and logical indicates that our emissions also may increase the speed of the Earth's natural cycle, what more FACT do you need to ACT more responsibly?

    Furthermore, what inconvenience is it to you and your life to be more resourceful or waste less energy? Why is the thought of investing in a new energy source so absolutely incomprehensible?

    If we shared your thought patterns, we would still be jumping off of buildings with wings strapped on our arms or driving steam powered vehicles. It has been people that make an investment in technological improvements that made the world what it is today, not those who wait for proof.

    The only FACT for global warming naysayers like yourself will be when it occurs (and we KNOW it will occur again, it has done for billions of years), so how ridiculously stupid are those who feel they need to see it to believe it?

    Your ONLY argument can be a retarded claim that CO2 has no effect on the Earth's atmosphere or greenhouse effect. I suppose you'd have to drill your own 2 mile ice sample and have someone unscientific determine that for you, those with the knowledge already don't seem to matter to you.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    A bias in favor of fact = honesty.

    No offense taken.

    +
    0 Votes

    So,

    TonytheTiger

    Each time there was a massive climate change there was an increase in the CO2 bubbles in the ice, so much so that the air would have been literally toxic.

    What makes you think that the CO2 caused the warm-up, as opposed to the warm-up causing the increase in CO2?

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    What makes you think that the CO2 caused the warm-up, as opposed to the warm-up causing the increase in CO2?

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=83

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    It could be either, or neither. Does it matter? Only if you want to blame someone. I don't think science is too interested in blame.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    It could be either, or neither.

    It's both. Other things being equal, a perturbation in either temperature or composition of the atmosphere affects the other.

    Does it matter?

    Of course it matters.

    Only if you want to blame someone.

    Wrong. The correct answer is, only if you want to know the truth. That's our problem with one another. One of us doesn't want to know the truth, and we both believe it's the other one.

    I don't think science is too interested in blame.

    Science is a process that some humans choose to use. As such, it is not "interested in" anything -- nor disinterested in anything. The intelligent question is, can it be applied to subjects with relevance to question of blame? The answer is, of course it can, because if we apply the scientific method to any subject of moral import, then understanding those processes helps us understand who to blame -- or who to credit, depending on how people act on their knowledge.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    I regard and interact with you as a sullied partner in crime. You are fractious, but a partner of no little worth nonetheless.

    Applying scientific method to any subject of moral import (there's another kind?), then arriving at ye or nay, obliges you, fractious one, to demonstrate how the means, manner, and method of Everything does not hold ye for everything.

    How else do you imagine that I accept you eye to eye?

    More pointedly, it takes no imagination to see how you nay me in your intermittent and unruly way.

    Which of us commits the very first high crime, that of morality, and by what ethic?

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    Other things being equal,

    except in the test tube. Any the more "things" there are (both known if they cannot be accounted for, and unknown) the greater the possibility of error in predicting behavior.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    Of course, they never are,
    (Other things being equal,)
    ... except in the test tube. And the more "things" there are (both known if they cannot be accounted for, and unknown) the greater the possibility of error in predicting behavior.


    That's a good reason to pursue more knowledge, not a good reason to bury your head in the sand and pretend to believe everything is just fine, when you know the available evidence implies the opposite. And that's not an excuse to take pot-shots at the character of people you don't know, and attempt to discredit work you proclaim, like it's a virtue, you're unable and unwilling to understand.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    Co-conspirator
    I regard and interact with you as a sullied partner in crime.


    What crime is that?

    You are fractious, but a partner of no little worth nonetheless.

    Any comfort you obtain by my effort -- any partnership with you -- is an unfortunate accident I'm eager to dissolve.

    Applying scientific method to any subject of moral import (there's another kind?), then arriving at ye or nay, obliges you, fractious one, to demonstrate how the means, manner, and method of Everything does not hold ye for everything.

    Obliges? By what standard? By what authority?

    How else do you imagine that I accept you eye to eye?

    I really don't imagine anything about you, speedbump.

    More pointedly, it takes no imagination to see how you nay me in your intermittent and unruly way.

    Which of us commits the very first high crime, that of morality, and by what ethic?


    Did you just say that morality is a high crime, or did I misinterpret the last question? If I misinterpreted, please re-phrase.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    .

    +
    0 Votes

    And

    santeewelding

    How in the world do you say that to Tony after what you told Puppybreath?

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    You haven't impressed me as one who pays his debts, I'm just explaining why I don't answer your questions.

    +
    0 Votes

    Ye

    santeewelding

    I notice the "you owe" and the "you put" without tender of reciprocation, you thief.

    I'll indulge. I can afford it, recasting you as mendicant.

    Your "any subject of moral import," to which I appended my "kind" question (unanswered), distinguishes those subjects of moral import as against -- some other kind?

    If there exists no other kind of subject, as I suggest, your phrase may be shortened to "any subject," i.e., Everything, Absolutely. You are familiar with that last, are you not?

    If there does exist a member of another kind, such as scientific method itself, it of other than moral import, then you stand in ye or nay judgment of your method by means of your method. That last is fascinating.

    Thumbs down and your emprise blinks out of existence. Thumbs up and you're in business. It holds ye absolutely. There is but ye. We are back to what I suggest: no other kind of subject.

    I absolutely cannot rid myself of you. So I accept -- ye -- and look you in the eye. Doesn't mean I can't step over here, though, and breathe the air upwind of your sorry improvidence.

    You are obliged, then, necessarily by all that is. The standard? Probably intelligence. The authority is yours.

    And to be sure, no, you do not misinterpret. I did say, "the very first high crime, morality," the one by which is said, "no".

    Oh, and, yes, about Puppybreath and Tony, if you can afford to.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    OK, in sequential order:

    Applying scientific method to any subject of moral import (there's another kind?)

    Of course. Most personal decisions are properly decided on esthetic considerations only because they have no bearing on anybody else. Every real libertarian knows that.

    If there exists no other kind of subject, as I suggest, your phrase may be shortened to "any subject," i.e., Everything, Absolutely.

    You suggest incorrectly, and that you knew the suggestion to be incorrect already is not plausibly deniable.

    You are familiar with that last, are you not? If there does exist a member of another kind, such as scientific method itself, it of other than moral import, then you stand in ye or nay judgment of your method by means of your method. That last is fascinating. Thumbs down and your emprise blinks out of existence. Thumbs up and you're in business. It holds ye absolutely. There is but ye. We are back to what I suggest: no other kind of subject. I absolutely cannot rid myself of you. So I accept -- ye -- and look you in the eye. Doesn't mean I can't step over here, though, and breathe the air upwind of your sorry improvidence.

    I've disproved your theorem. All implications and corollaries are demolished along with it.

    And to be sure, no, you do not misinterpret. I did say, "the very first high crime, morality," the one by which is said, "no".

    That's foolish.

    Oh, and, yes, about Puppybreath and Tony, if you can afford to.

    Which statement to pupybreath do you mean? Answer with a URL, if at all.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    .

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    That is as close to "interesting" as you have ever been! What part of my making a fool of you did you enjoy?

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    how you have disproved sw's theorem. I need to know please, what I am missing.

    And, I would like to know how morality is removed from beauty, good taste, propriety, and correctness.

    Lastly, how is it possible to know while making a personal decision what bearing that personal decision will have on those others who have been, are now, and/or one day will be part of our personal arena over the course of our lives, particularly given our notorious lack of foresight, and empathy with those others?

    Most personal decisions are properly decided on esthetic considerations only because they have no bearing on anybody else.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I really did get the wrong end of that one. Just got back from lunch and was trygin to tpye while being asked a host of questions, WORK! Can't they see I'm busy saving the world?

    I saw your titel and misread it to mean "That just proves irrational bias in LIEU of facts". Obviously that's not what you said nor what I actually saw, but that's what was interpreted; my bad, back to fact finding. :)

  • +
    1 Votes
    santeewelding

    Did you calculate, in addition to linear percentage of the whole, the quadratic and the cubic? May they be leveraged into a statement?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Bollocks ^2 = Total Crap
    Bollocks ^3 = Maxwell's Post

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    geez, at least refute the stats.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I was just answering Santee's cryptic utterance. I think I pointed out the crap-factor in Max's stats in another post which I posted before wasting pixels on the answer to Santee's. Put my response down to annoyance that the "football field" analogy is still being posted.

    Neil :)

    Edit to remove the first line of crap as it was a bit unfair.

    +
    1 Votes
    santeewelding

    To put down the football field analogy to annoyance is to put down any linear stab at understanding.

    You would likewise need to put down Sagan's walk on the calendar of earth history; scoff at him kneeling to point out the last seconds of the last minutes of our presence. His stab was linear, and startling to me, then and still now.

    While I don't rank him with Sagan, I do appreciate Maxwell's as a first stab, regardless of where he got it, or if he did it himself.

    My cryptic reference was based on the linear of his helpful stab. My questions were confined, as was his approach, to the number line, i.e., natural, rational, irrational, real, imaginary, complex.

    In a word, or a stab, the reason you get less topping on a pizza the further you go from the center along linear r is that the area near c increases dramatically by the square of r. Volume increases more so by the cube of r. Costs too much out there.

    I didn't do the math. I did see that his reliance on percentage could be affected.

    Do you like pizza?

    I do.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Stuffed crust is the answer. Especially the pepperoni stuffed crust which we now have in Pizza Hut over here. Pepperoni stuffed crust is equivalent to Einstein's modifications of Newton's Laws in a relativistic environment - makes it all nice again under any circumstance.

    I don't have any problem with Sagan's walk or other similar analogies but Maxwell's stab - and it's not original Maxwell as he can do better - falls on the fact that all but the final three inches are irrelevant in a discussion about Global Warming. All of the gases up to three inches from Touchdown are neutral to IR.

    Sagan's Planet Walk (I've heard of it but never been to NY) doesn't have a meaningless extra hundred miles tacked on representing the distance between Sirius and Alpha Centauri.

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    ...but I've never actually run the numbers. So, using your example, atmospheric gases by percentage:

    - Nitrogen - 78%
    - Oxygen - 21%
    - Argon - .916666...%
    - Other Gases - .05555...%
    - CO2 - .027777...%

    Percentage of CO2 by source

    * Water vapor - 95%
    * Natural sources - 2.669%
    * Respiration - 1.1634%
    * Mechanical Combustion - 1.1634%

    As a percentage of the whole atmosphere, the CO2 created by mechanical combustion is, let me see, 1.1634% of .027777% or .011 634 * .000 277 77 gives .000 003 231 6 or .000 323 16% of the atmosphere. CO2 created by mechanical combustion is less than 4 parts per million of atmospheric gases? In any other arena, this would be statistically insignificant!

    What's the source for your figures, Max? I found a site which says my percentages are a bit low, but agrees that humans cannot have a statistically significant effect on climate.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    Edit: format

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    as to the "relationship" whereby you list water vapour as a source of CO2.

    As for Maxwell's post, it is, as usual on this subject, a waste of good pixels. He should stick to US politics. Nitrogen, Oxygen (except for Ozone) and Argon are neutral to infra-red.

    The common greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs.

    Carbon dioxide is responsible for between 10% and 25% of the total greenhouse effect - the wide variation is because it varies with the water vapour contribution.

    You can bring out as many wonderful examples about the relatively small concentration of CO2 - such as Max's "Football Field" - but it's all trash. Misleading, at best mistaken but more likely deliberately dishonest.

    Neil

    Not that I'm accusing Max of being disingenuous.

    Oh, no. Not for a moment...

    Yet.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    95 percent of that last inch (25.4mm) is CO2 that comes from water vapor - that is, evaporation from oceans, lakes, rain water, and so on.

    He didn't provide a source.

    I don't argue climate change, Neil. I don't even argue the disproportionate effects of CO2 or methane as greenhouse gases. But I find it both arrogant and ignorant to attribute climate change solely to the actions of mankind and think it's disingenuous (at best) for people to argue that we can have an affect on such change by reducing atmospheric levels of a single contributor when we don't know all the interactions. I'll reiterate my position here: I think we should do what we can to reduce greenhouse gas generation and develop alternative fuels; I don't think we should bankrupt the world economy on the altar of CO2. And CO2 credit trading is spelled "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y."

    The Earth's climate has changed constantly over the 4+ billion years of the Earth's existence; man has been around for the last 1% or so of that existence. Given the recent attention paid to extracting climate data from ice packs and the fossil record, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear speculation that the Earth is actually returning to normal after an epoch of abnormally cool temperatures.

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    of the gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, we've slowly increased in last 150 years since the beginning of the industrial age to pumping out 8% of the total natural CO2 yearly MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, so in little over 10 years we pump out double the amount in existance. About a third is absorbed into the ocean so the remaining amount is not all we spew forth.

    It is quite simple: all that carbon was laid down in deposits, after periods that were much warmer. oil and coal are fossilized hydrogenated carbonaceous plant materials. Us putting it back in the atmosphere incredibly quickly by natural standards is setting up the atmosphere to the same times when there were steaming jungles covering the planet, and the US was split in two with the center covered by a shallow sea from the rockies to the appalacian mountains.

    Arrogant to think we affect the climate? Arrogant and self centered to think we DON'T when you look at the facts.

    We are increasing CO2 at a rate 10,000 times faster than any CO2 change in history. Which means we are affecting climate alot faster.

    At one time short sighted people also viewed the ocean as infinite. Large it is, but not infinite. And now the most remote reaches of the ocean for example have a high density of plastic bits floating in them, along with chemical contaminants.

    Bankrupt us? we will go bankrupt fighting wars started by people starving and who have run out of drinking water. We will likely loose much of our own fresh water for same reason and while we have the resources to pay for it, we won't like to. Esp since the water systems, typically run by govt entities have not invested money just to keep their pipes from leaking; pipes that were designed to last 50 years now have an average age of 54+ years.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    pipes in the ground don't draw a lot of attention.

    One of the biggest problems in Michigan is water treatment systems have not been updated and during a big storm, to much water enters the system. this causes an overflow and waste water is released into our rivers.

    Still waiting for the EPA to FORCE the cities to make better retention systems.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    I never said humans don't affect the environment. What I stated was:

    ...I find it both arrogant and ignorant to attribute climate change solely to the actions of mankind and think it's disingenuous (at best) for people to argue that we can have an affect on such change by reducing atmospheric levels of a single contributor when we don't know all the interactions. (emphasis added)

    Are you implying that humans are the only contributors to climate change? That we know all the factors contributing to climate change and all the interactions between those factors? That we are capable of having a significant effect on more than one or two of those factors? If so, that is the arrogance to which I refer.

    Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 cannot decrease without a wrenching (and most likely violent) change in our society and/or a corresponding decrease in the human population. Is that your wish?

    Edit: slepl

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You say that "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 cannot decrease without a wrenching (and most likely violent) change in our society".

    What is it about our environment and lifestyle that gives the CO2 production per annum, per person in the EU at a level of less than half of the US?

    Maybe you should ask us what we do or don't do. Most of the EU doesn't have any oil so we just don't have the habit of thinking it is cheap and inexhaustible.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    Were the population density of the US equal to that of most European countries, transit systems equivalent to those of Europe would be feasible. The United States has an average population density of 29.77 people per km2; the only European countries I have found with lower population densities are Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia. Outside the Balkans, the nearest western European country in population density is Ireland at 52.74 people per km2, well over half-again the density of the US.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_pop_den-geography-population-density

    The distances involved also have an effect, as do the attitudes. Can you imagine driving from Oxford, Southampton, or Cambridge to London and back daily? Americans will accept that 50- or 75-mile one-way commute. Many Americans view the automobile as the expression of their freedom (these are also usually those who merely aim their vehicle) and would not use transit systems if they were available. Others would use transit systems, but only if they were "affordable" and "convenient" with affordable meaning "what I'm willing to pay" and convenient meaning "when I want it there."

    And nobody wants a supermarket or bar close to their house. Yes, Neil, I know!

    Edit: stupid Enter key!

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The average mileage driven by a citizen of the US is only marginally greater than that driven by a European. That fact cost me a steak dinner for Maxwell - which I still intend to pay.

    Think again...

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    is the tendency of Americans to use vehicle size to make up for shortcomings in other areas... :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    We have cars, mainly little ones, and you have larger cars. What you have loads of, though, is minivans, SUVs and trucks. All of these have the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick but they do allow you to indulge your national pastime of moving big lumps of steel around.

    As far as I can find out, the average US engine size is in excess of 200 cubic inches for residential vehicles. The average size of a new UK car in 2007 was 1770cc which is 108 cubic inches. The figure is rising, though, which is INSANE!

    We use quite a few more efficient diesel cars and across the Channel they use more.

    Nuff said?

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    is that unless you live in a city with a million or two population, it is grossly under-utilized, and thus grossly inefficient.

    I can't count the number of times I've seen buses running around empty or with one or two people on them.

    Our small city has 6 bus routes. Average ridership is 71 people per day (and some of them are counted twice because they change buses). Average fuel usage is 635 gallons per day. That's almost 9 gallons per person per day!

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    ...making up for shortcomings... B-)

    Americans equate vehicle size with success-the larger the vehicle, the more successful you are. It's a peculiar psychology to which too many people fall victim: it's not what you are that matters, but what you appear to be. We laugh at Keeping Up Appearances, but there are more "boo-kays" in the US than Buckets.

    edit

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    I live in NJ, where mass transit is a joke.

    Unless you are going into Philadelphia or New York, it's less than useless.

    My commute takes me about an hour by car. If I used mass transit, I would need to take two trains, a bus and a taxi, would cost me about 50 dollars daily and take 4 hours.

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    Of course humans are not the ONLY cause of climate change. We've just overwhelmed the natural change factors by a vast factor, proportional to the amount of GHG we spew from hundreds of millions of cars and factories.

    It is the same arrogance and irrationalality you are showing to say: decreasing our CO2 emissions will destroy the economy, therefore global warming must be false. This seems to be the logic you are stating.

    I wish it wasn't so also. Rush limbaugh pulling facts out of his a** and others confusing cause with the cure doesn't stop the problem.

    It remains that:
    1) CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas in huge quantities.
    2) we have pumped more than double the original quantity into the atmosphere and continue to INCREASE the rate at which we spew this stuff
    3) every simulation and temperature correlation to emissions volume says we are changing the climate
    4) there are natural factors but the only large ones are feedback loops: i.e. we increase temperature with CO2 from cars, power plants and more CO2 ends up being emitted from melting permafrost and greenhouse gasses from huge methane hydrate deposits in the sea, plus melting ice now doesn't reflect sun's heat back to space.

    Having us reduce our emissions certainly will cost money. Those economies that emit the most are also the most able to afford it. At one point the power companies complained that the cost of emissions on coal plants would put them out of biz.

    Instead we reduced our acid rain problem greatly and incidence of lung disease which cost billions too.

    Similarly money spent reducing our pollution will likely reduce money spent 1) US sending aid overseas to feed starving people. 2) US spending money to fight wars caused by starving people. 3) reduced terrorism likely if it looks like we are doing something positive.

    4) reduced aid to our farmers and other countries to their own farmers when crops fail due to climate change (witness recent massive flooding that caused current rice crisis in indonesia and other places, drought that cut crop in australia...)

    Sure I'd like if we didn't have to do this. but in the end we'll have:
    economy not dependent on foreign energy sources nearly as much
    much more clean energy so certain cities are not the 'armpits of the country'
    more reliable energy grid if the 'future car' is like the 'skateboard car' where there is a no-moving-parts conversion of water+metal to produce the metal oxide plus free hydrogen to turn directly into electricity, then cars parked in driveways or garages can be used for peak power or even sole power source for remote cabins, etc. Without noise and pollution.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    It is the same arrogance and irrationalality you are showing to say: decreasing our CO2 emissions will destroy the economy, therefore global warming must be false. This seems to be the logic you are stating.

    I never even implied it.

    My succinctly expressed feelings on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/42x5ot
    I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to the contrary to affect my thoughts.

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    I read in Sci Am recently that we can with tweaked algae make gasoline out of water and the CO2 in the air. With the present price of petroleum, upsizing this process should be doable and only OPEC, Russia and a few other places should have a wrenching change in their societies.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    If you can get an algae that grows in sea-water, all you need is some suitable glass-sided tanks and sunlight. What a nice thing to do with all of the desert that you have.

    Stick a plant next to Las Vegas and and you can pipe the city's waste into it for nutrients.

    However, doing something on that scale requires a huge capital outlay. What's the incentive when you can grow corn to make alcohol and make good money?

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    My work requires that I drive an average 1000 miles every week; I have not received an increase in the mileage reimbursement rate since June 2007. I won't ask what you think about that; I suspect I'd get a literal response.

    The American vehicle culture MUST change; under the circumstances, there is no choice. However, the many (majority?) whose vehicle size reflects their sense of self-worth will not adapt easily. The expense of operating the "land yachts" will force the change. That change will most likely be violent (think "petrol wars").

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    But I find it both arrogant and ignorant to attribute climate change solely to the actions of mankind and think it's disingenuous (at best) for people to argue that we can have an affect on such change by reducing atmospheric levels of a single contributor when we don't know all the interactions.

    ... the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. All this talk of raising energy taxes and carbon credits is designed to control who is allowed to pump it into the atmosphere. It is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to put the non-elite people "into their proper place".

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    Too often the spoken desire to help masks the unspoken desire to rule.

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    I'm puzzled as to the "relationship" whereby you list water vapour as a source of CO2.

    ... the CO2 in a glass of carbonated water if it is left in the sun to evaporate?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Currently, the oceans are a nett sink of CO2, taking out more than they emit despite the increase in global temperature. That was the source of my puzzlement.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Dr Dij

    of Dover,
    and marble, limestone deposits - under the whole state of florida, and mountain ranges globally are testimony to the ability of the oceans to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    Unhappily for us, this occurs over hundreds or thousands of years, and our overload of the atmosphere with CO2 causes more CO2 to enter the ocean. Going with the fizzy drink analogy, it is like the CO2 injectors in a cola factory that take water without CO2 and make it 'fizzy'

    and unhappily for coral reefs and diatoms that produce the bulk (70%) of the worlds oxygen, this same CO2 forms carbonic acid when dissolved in seawater, which then acidifies the ocean enuf that the shells of calcareous and silicaceous diatoms can't form.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    You need to focus on the thermal properties of each gas, especially their absorption/emission spectra, and that especially in the infrared band.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    I ran with the numbers that were given; that was all that was given. You're late. This party's over.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    But the messages are still here & the TR software (and its BIOS viruses) still allow me to reply.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    not least by mixing Imperial and Metric measurements. You could have kept it in hundredths of an inch, it would still have been bollocks.

    Pretty meaningless, Maxwell. Where did you get it from?

    OK, main point is that Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are not greenhouse gases and can be ignored as a contributor to warming or cooling the Earth.

    Out of that remainder, 0.678mm is CO2 from natural sources - volcanoes and other stuff from the earth.

    That leaves 0.591mm - just over one-half of one millimeter - which is CO2 produced by human (and other creature) activity.


    So, half of the CO2 is down to us? and half of that is due to fossil fuels? Not quite correct but close enough.

    Why bother?

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    (Disclaimer: When I say global warming and/or climate change, I mean human-caused and/or human-accelerated global warming and/or global cooling and/or alleged subsequent human-caused and/or human-accelerated climate-change - I mean whatever anyone claims we're causing.)

    Why the attempt at flinging an insult? (An attempt only, as I do not accept it - I refuse to take it, so it's still yours.) We can certainly agree to disagree, but to resort to such a thing is actually surprising to me - especially from you. Moreover, in one of your messages, you said that my own facts shot myself in the foot, but in another, you call me disingenuous for the way I presented them? Which is it, Neil?

    Disingenuous? Please, Neil, I deserve more credit than that. And who's really disingenuous?

    See my disclaimer. They (you know who they are) keep changing their claims and/or terms. That's what I call disingenuous.

    I seem to recall hoards of (so-called) experts who pointed to Hurricane Katrina as proof of man-caused climate-change, and that it would result in even more severe hurricane seasons; they even predicted that 2006 and 2007 would be worse than 2005. They were wrong; but they didn't admit it, did they? That's what I call disingenuous.

    They claimed that global warming would continue, but the average global temperature over the past ten years has actually dropped. That's what I call disingenuous.

    They claim that global cooling is caused by global warming. That's what I call disingenuous.

    There's one scientist who's a global warming advocate, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who, as you might recall, accused the Bush administration of trying to silence him - even though he advanced his global warming agenda in over 1500 speeches and presentations during that time. That's what I call disingenuous.

    All of these global warming and/or climate-change predictions are based on computer models. Yet, these computer models do not factor-in all possible variables - ALL possible variables, including the activity of the Sun. That's what I call disingenuous.

    In the 1980s, Al Gore called the internal combustion engine a bigger threat to mankind than a nuclear holocaust. That's what I call disingenuous.

    Speaking of Al Gore, consider the fictional (so-called) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To see a great percentage of our elementary schools showing An Inconvenient Truth to our kids and passing it off as fact. That's what I call disingenuous.

    For politicians to consider global warming and/or climate change a foregone conclusion in order to advance their own political aspirations. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To see the dominant media consider global warming and/or climate change a foregone conclusion. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To see the United Nations consider global warming and/or climate change a foregone conclusion. That's what I call disingenuous.

    The Kyoto Protocol. That's what I call disingenuous.

    I see an environmental movement that spends hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars trying to get other people to develop alternative sources of energy. Why don't they just spend that same money and effort to do it themselves? That's what I call disingenuous.

    To say that there's a consensus. That's what I call disingenuous.

    The radical environmentalists continually spout-off about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil; yet these are the very people who block production of known American oil reserves. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To think that the world economy is not driven by the use of oil. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To not consider balance between environmental and economic considerations. That's what I call disingenuous.

    To those who will take "economic considerations" and call it greed, but still criticize others when it's their wallet that feels the pinch. That's what I call disingenuous.

    These same radical environmentalists criticize the coal-burning power industry, but they block the construction of nuclear power plants. That's what I call disingenuous.

    They demonize "big oil" for high gasoline prices, yet the continually block construction of new refineries. That's what I call disingenuous.

    The biggest eco-advocates - the Hollywood types and politicians like Al Gore, Governor Terminator, and Prince Charles - who want other people to reduce their "carbon footprint", but yet they, themselves, emit hundreds of times more carbon emissions with their lavish lifestyles and private travel than the normal person. That's what I call disingenuous.

    But they buy Carbon Credits to make up for it (in Al Gore's case, from his own company). That's what I call disingenuous.

    I could go on and on and on and on and on and on ........ I could cite hundreds of examples of the disingenuousness of the global warming advocates. But I'll stop here.

    You're on the side of the disingenuous, Neil, not me.

    I'm not a smart scientist like you, Neil. I'm just some dumb American trying to figure out who to believe. And I choose to NOT believe those disingenuous people I just mentioned. However, I won't call you disingenuous - just fooled and misguided.

    Global Warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Not to worry, Neil, London will not flood (as global warming advocates claim) because of rising ocean levels. History will prove me right and you wrong. Too bad we won't be around for me to collect on that bet! (Now that would be one BIG steak.)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    But I would say that the original piece of work from which you cut the bulk your post most decidedly IS. As I said in my reply, the fact that the three main constituents do not affect infra-red radiation in any way rather removes the whole "gosh" effect of the piece. It removes any point whatsoever.

    You can do better. The post DID shoot itself in the foot.

    You can't do much worse.

    Your response to my post is a lot better in that you wrote it yourself. I'll try and address a few points. Please don't expect me to talk about Gore, though, as the man is a total arse and his film definitely IS disingenuous. Prince Charles is an arse, too - trust me in this. Governor T owns half a dozen Hummers and is a hypocritical arse. We have agreement here.

    The whole GW thing has been hijacked by radicals. In this I agree with you. It's now full of people who don't really understand and don't consider the balance between the cure and the disease and people are already suffering from the misguided acts of these people and it will get worse. In this I agree with you.

    I don't remember any experts talking about the Hurricane Season except in terms of sunspots and probabilities. The last couple of years was predicted to be bad because hurricanes go in cycles and - statistically - we were due for a couple more bad years. All of the science that I have read has not said that there will be more hurricanes because of GW. Check out NOAA (that's your hurricane people) and UKMET (that's ours) who both stated that 2005 was an EXCEPTIONAL year. It was, but not because of Katrina. Katrina was just another hurricane that happened to hit a city built in a stupid place.

    Most of the evidence for GW comes from peer-review scientific papers. unfortunately in this current political climate (PI), peer review in climate science should be taken with a pinch of salt. I would agree with you that the climate science peer review process has been abused and that the reviewing process is incestuous. The main popular scientific journals (Nature, Scientific American, etc.) have declared their bias by pronouncing the science as settled. Hey, agreement!

    I don't know James Hansen so I've had to Google him. Nice bit of publicity he got for himself by his "gagging" claims. Writes books, doesn't he? Hmmm. he's an arse. Agreement again.

    I could go on agreeing with you or I could pull out an equally large bunch of lying bastards and dubioous statistics from the "denier" side of the tracks. However it's a sunny morning and I'm going for a hike.

    Neil

    p.s. Global Warming is NOT the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Religion beats GW hands down.

    Not that GW and GW denial aren't taking on all of the trappings of a religion.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    I hope you enjoyed your hike. Sun block?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    as you well know, Abs. Rust-proofing is more appropriate!

    The hike was terrific. I did about fifteen miles across the North Downs, a range of sub-1000ft hills near my home, and stopped at the Botley Hill Farmhouse pub for a pint (or two) during the trip.

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    One of your oft-repeated statements is that "there is no consensus". You provide no proof of this other than the names of single scientists who hold anti-GW views.

    I can't find any definitive evidence to the contrary, either, other than this that I ran across the other day.

    http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/

    Read into it what you will.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    There are plenty of global warming skeptics, those of the scientific flavor and otherwise. I also believe that the most vocal of the global warming advocates are of the non-scientific variety. What does that say?

    I've named no fewer than four or five over the course of these discussions, including:

    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama.

    Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT.

    William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

    Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

    Of course, when a person (around here) can't debate their argument, they've resorted to finding something to discredit the person.

    Do a Web search for Global Warming skeptics, and you'll get plenty of hits.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    applies to seeking out skeptics and supporters in that I have no real knowledge of the professional status of the key players. Google doesn't really tell me that unless I really dig through and I've had so many dead-ends when researching US academics.

    What makes it difficult when I'm dealing with US scientists as the term "Professor" doesn't mean the same over there as it does here. A Professor in a UK university will be the head of a department and the title of Professor is a legal title. Generally, if a Professor says something in the UK, I listen.

    In the US, a Professor could be a Junior Lecturer and I wouldn't necessarily take the time from one of them without checking my watch. For this reason, I tend to stick with UK academics as I can assess their academic standing straight off.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You find a reason to discredit and/or ignore them. The real reason, however, is that ..... well, we know the real reason.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I did all that I'm prepared to do. You, on the other hand, do not appear EVER to have addressed those scientists who DO support the IPCC. I would hazard a guess that you can't name a single prominent, internationally recognised climatologist who is a supporter of the IPCC.

    I believe that you have let your particular political views affect your reasoning powers. Because combating Anthropogenic Global Warming requires a major shift in attitudes and significant social change, it is something that will only be successful if imposed by governments. You just can't accept that so you rubbish the cause. Like you, I believe that Al Gore is a hypocritical, publicity seeking sh:t of a failed politician who will do ANYTHING for a little power. Unlike you, I am not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

    As for your list, all I can say is that for every skeptic you find, I can produce a dozen names of climatologist who DO believe that the IPCC has it nearly right.

    We had a discussion on William Gray in another thread. I gave you my opinion that the good Professor was making an awful lot of fuss about nothing with his complaints of "gagging". I also pointed out that he was a meteorologist and not a climatologist.

    Richard Lindzen appeared on UK Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle". That documentary was every bit as biased and flawed as anything Gore has said and done. Lindzen lost credibility with me for that.

    Fred Singer doesn't believe that second hand smoke is harmful. The man is an arse.

    Roy Spencer is a supporter of Intelligent Design. I've known about Roy Spencer for years. The man is a total arse.

    "well, we know the real reason"

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Okay, Neil. You set the rules for disqualification from having a valid opinion and/or argument. Let's run with that.

    If Richard Lindzen lost credibility because he appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, AND, according to you, that documentary was every bit as biased and flawed as anything Gore has done, such as An Inconvenient Truth, we should therefore disqualify anyone and everyone who had anything to do with either project - anyone who appeared, provided opinion, consulted, was interviewed, etc. - skeptics and advocates alike.

    You disqualified Fred Singer because he doesn't believe second hand smoke is harmful and that the man is an arse. Okay, let's further disqualify any and all people who've ventured outside their area of expertise to offer an opinion on some issue - regardless of the original context. Anyone who's said anything that other people find disagreeable and/or outrageous is hereby disqualified - skeptics and advocates alike.

    You said that Roy Spencer is a supporter of Intelligent Design ..... and that the man is a total arse. I wonder, why is Singer an arse, but Spencer is a total arse? What's the difference? Nonetheless, anyone who believes in Intelligent Design, and/or God, and/or anything even resembling creationism, regardless of the faith that person is affiliated with - Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever - anyone who simply believes in a higher power and/or creation of the universe by any means other than pure accident and coincidence is hereby disqualified - skeptics and advocates alike.

    Oh, and anyone who is either an arse or a total arse is also hereby disqualified - skeptics and advocates alike.

    So far, Neil, I might guess that upwards of 95 percent - maybe more - of the "qualified experts" (whoever they really are) should, according to your criteria, all be disqualified from voicing an opinion on the issue - skeptics and advocates alike.

    And from what I understand, Dr. William Gray is indeed a climatoligist, at least that's how he's often referred. But I'm sure he falls into one of the categories listed above, so you'll disqualify him nonetheless.

    But we'll go ahead and disqualify any and all meteorologist - skeptics and advocates alike. But I'm a bit confused about something. It sounds as though you might define all climatologist as also being meteorologist, but not all meteorologist are climatologist. Is that right, Neil? Or is it always one or the other, but never both?

    Speaking of Al Gore, whom you described as a hypocritical, publicity seeking sh:t of a failed politician who will do ANYTHING for a little power, and you called his documentary biased and flawed, he certainly didn't deserve that Nobel Prize he was awarded, primarily because of that documentary. We should therefore question the Nobel Committee, and disqualify anyone and/or anything associated with the awarding of that prize, which would also disqualify the IPCC, don't you think? You did, after all, suggest that we should disqualify people simply because of association, didn't you?

    Speaking of the IPCC, let's look at a list of those folks. Do you have one handy? If you do, please post the names, titles, qualifications, beliefs, outrageous statements, arse rating, etc., so we can properly qualify and/or disqualify those folks based on the criteria you initially established.

    Really, Neil. Do you have a list of the people who make-up the IPCC? I'd love to see it.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    Sorry there Neil, but that was funny.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Glad you liked it!

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    After you, sir.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    attack the source, not the information provided by the source.

    The only thing missing was "I bet he listens to Rush"..... Meant as the greatest of insults.... by some.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    and I can't change the fact that Max's choice of supporters for his cause don't fill me with confidence.

    Who is Rush?

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    that you have never heard of Rush Limbaugh?

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

    that just seems so unlikely? Or just not on first name terms with him?

    You have heard the saying "Ditto heads"?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I had heard the name but had no idea whatsoever what he did or in what sphere - TV, politics, etc - he operated. Radio, it would seem. I only listen to BBC Radio 4 so I'm never likely to hear him unless he gets a part in The Archers.

    Trust me, I'm from around here and not from over there.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    Rush is a Conservative, um, opinionist, I guess would be the best word.

    While the weak minded and foolish will call him a mouthpiece for the Republicans, I have heard him MANY times chastise the Republicans for NOT doing what they should be doing. He has been VERY critical of Bush on many fronts.

    He is also fond of referring to President Clinton's presidential library as the Clinton library and massage parlor. ;\

    In the liberal weenie circles, it is quickly thrown out as an insult if you don't STFU and do as they say that you're a "ditto head" as if listening to Rush invalidates you.

    Liberals are great fans of freedom of speech, but only if it is speech that they agree with, as witnessed by attempts to make it a CRIME to be a "Global Warming Denier".

    A scary prospect that they would seek to use that as a route to push their political agenda of global warming. Is there any wonder many of us don't buy into it?

    +
    0 Votes
    TonytheTiger

    but I prefer Glen Beck. Neither is a perfect match though.

    Unfortunately, the Republican party is becoming like McCain and Schwarzenegger, and it's going to take a lot to push it back toward conservatism.

    +
    0 Votes
    jdclyde

    Just stating that simpletons like to throw that around as what they see as an insult. They can't touch his message, so they viciously attack the person. Again, very typical reaction from the Liberals that advocate free speach, as long as it is something they agree with, then it is to be silenced at all costs. Conservatives WANT liberals to get their message out because the more people that hear it, the more that can see just how insane the majority of the liberal positions are.

    Both Beck and Rush have their places, as does Hannity.

    They make good points, but often in different areas.

    I have rarely disagreed with Hannity.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    There are plenty of global warming skeptics, those of the scientific flavor and otherwise. I also believe that the most vocal of the global warming advocates are of the non-scientific variety. What does that say?

    It says that you base your belief, not on logic and facts, but the volume at which they're stated.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    Stop basing your counterarguments on "the most vocal" and construct some new ones, based on the most rigorous science.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    "As we all know..."

    is not the basis for any sort of science.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    I have no objection to discussing "bandwagoning" whenever it is appropriate. In any case that you or maxwell or the rest of your aliases can demonstrate that phenomenon in the realm of published scientific research, you'll find me admirably receptive to valid critique. But all that you, maxwell, Tony and jd have demonstrated so far is your own group-think assumption that climate science is the product of group-think, based only on the fact that a consensus exists on the essence of the theory of anthropomorphic global warming, with less substantive, professional-grade dissent than you wish to believe. The ability to spell and define ipso hoc, ipso propter hoc, et al. [sp?] does not exempt you from supporting your own assertions with the relevant facts, which are in the subjects of thermodynamics, optics, organic chemistry, biochemistry, and geology, and that's just getting warmed up. Politics and pop psychology are child's play. When you boys are ready for the big leagues, I'll take your proclamations on science as seriously as you wish. Until then, I'll take your proclamations as seriously as they warrant. TS.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    If I weren't so busy studying how to suction vomitus, I'd give your present effort a try.

    For now, I have just a question with respect to your phrase, "proclamation on science".

    Do you mean their take on this or that result "of" current science, or do you actually mean "on" science, as in big-league Scientia?

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

    An imperfect theory is preferable to none at all. An imperfect theory of relativity, for example, is sufficient for very popular GPS technology. I hear it's as effective as it needs to be, for civilian applications anyway.

    http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=263796&messageID=2509641

    All global warming and/or climate change claims and predictions are all based on projections attained by computer models. None have accurately predicted anything over the past twenty years; in fact, all of the predictions have been wrong.

    I honestly have not checked yet how Dr. Gray's predictions stack up against this unusually destructive storm season, but I'd love to discuss the accuracy of his models with you.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    His specialty is hurricanes, of which we have had exactly none this year. What's to discuss?

    Getting out of the corner?

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    Too bad Dr. Gray's expertise is so limited. That would have been a fascinating sub-thread.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    1. me: Stop basing your counterarguments on "the most vocal"...

    2. Locrian_Lyric: discussing the logical fallacy of bandwagoning is legitimate
    "As we all know..." is not the basis for any sort of science.


    3. I replied: I have no objection to discussing "bandwagoning" whenever it is appropriate.

    I should have phrased that:
    I'm willing to discuss "bandwagoning" whenever that phenomenon is demonstrated. Until you can refute the physical premises of the so-called "global warming alarmists" you cannot logically support any claim that anyone has reacted excessively to anthropogenic global warming.

    "As we all know..." is likewise not the basis for any sort of logical rebuttal, of anything.

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    As are the 'consensus' crowd.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    No? OK. Whatever...

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    not being a smarta$$ here, just would like to know what you'd like me to expand on.

    Lyseknkoism refers to the Soviet politicization of science where 'party' scientists were elevated above all others because they had the 'consensus' of the party.

    Every time I hear the word 'consensus' with science, I get very very nervous.

    They've tried to dismiss the link between vaccinations and autism because of a similar 'consensus'.

    When the word 'consensus' is tossed around about science, it is essentially saying 'okay, debate over'.

    This ignores the fact that much scientific discovery has overturned previous consensus from Geo-centrist theory to the theory that germs spontaneously emerge from nothing.

    Einstein challanged Newton's laws of natural motion, thus upsetting the applecart of consensus on that one. Others have challanged Einstein's theories.

    This is a GOOD THING(tm)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    is a genetic doctrine formulated by Lysenko asserting that acquired characteristics are inheritable. It's about sixty years old, discounted and somewhat puzzling to me why you should bring it up!

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Geocentric theory, germs spontaneously emerge from nothing, Lysenkoism, Newton getting trashed by Einstein... All good stuff! A bit old hat, though.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that we shouldn't accept ANYTHING until absolute proof positive is provided and even then we should disbelieve it because the more scientists agree, the more likely they are to be wrong. Or actually not "scientists agree" but "scientists seem to agree" because it's all an international conspiracy headed up by Al Gore and The Communist United Nations to suppress the Freedom of the Murrican people to carry on WASTING STUFF.

    Neil :)

    p.s. Just because Newton didn't know about the behaviour of objects at speeds approaching c doesn't mean that Einstein "challenged" Newton. To believe that displays an extremely shallow knowledge of the History of Physics. I'd argue the point with you but I'm not sure how simple I'd have to go to start. Enough to say that once Einstein applied his theory that space is curved, Newton's laws fit right back and explain the precession of Mercury. Newton would have been happy, Einstein was happy but you just want to score points. That one missed the target!

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    no need to bother.

    You're spoiling for a fight, and I'm in no mood for one.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Einstein and Newton are disqualified as reputable and legitimate scientists. They both believed in a higher power and/or God - both synonymous with Intelligent Design, you know.

    (See previous comments by Neil and me for context.)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Trust me in this, Maxwell, Intelligent Design and God don't fit very well together. "Synonymous" is not the word that I would use. I have no problems at all with religious scientists so long as they keep their faith out of results and conclusions drawn - and most of them do. By all means work, if you wish, towards proof of anything but just do it honestly and that's OK by me.

    Intelligent Design is NOT honest. God would not like it (if I am to believe what people tell me about their pet imaginary being and apply a certain level of consistency). God doesn't NEED people to lie and cheat for Him.

    As for Newton, he was the product of his time: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

    Why should I have a problem with that?

    Einstein? His views varied but I have always reckoned that he was on the side of the Good Guys. "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

    Anyway, trying to use either of these major historical figures to score petty points in a little argument about science and especially setting them up as some sort of rivals is just so bad that it's almost a Godwin's Law censure!

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Are you going to make me look-up that Intelligent Design discussion (1,000+ messages!) and point to your message in which you said that Intelligent Design was really a smoke-screen and/or code-word for Creationism? If A equals B, then B must also equal A.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    is giving me a nosebleed.

    Not all religious people subscribe to Creationism, you know. The Pope is happy with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as is the ArchBishop of Canterbury. It's only the Reverend Mouthfrother of the Southern Baptist Convention who believes that the Earth is 6012 years old next October. Now HIM I have a problem with!

    Neil

    p.s. Have as much fun as you like. I'll fight my corner and fight dirty...

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    "... Intelligent Design and God don't fit very well together.

    Intelligent Design is NOT honest. God would not like it (if I am to believe what people tell me about their pet imaginary being and apply a certain level of consistency). God doesn't NEED people to lie and cheat for Him."

    I think you are quite correct here, with the exception of that pet imaginary being bit. ID and Creation as put forth in Genesis are not synonymous, evolution in any sense used by any group is not Biblical, and God would, I presume, given all that is propounded in the Bible, not at all appreciate that people 'lie and cheat for Him'. Quite the opposite I should think.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... disqualified my skeptical climatologist/scientist, Roy Spencer, simply on the grounds that he believed in Intelligent Design (and because he?s a arse), it might be fitting for you to qualify that comment.

    Do you consider Dr. Spencer more in-line with The Pope and the ArchBishop of Canterbury, happy with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory? Or is he one of your Mouthfrothers of the Southern Baptist Convention who believes that the Earth is 6012 years old next October?

    No guesses. Please provide proof of his beliefs if you choose to cite them as a reason for disqualification.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Spencer said, "I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism...".

    I say "How can you believe the science of someone who doesn't even believe in evolution?". That is my viewpoint. Live with it.

    Spencer and his Intelligent Design, perhaps not deliberately, seem to give support to the view that scientific results are simply a function of ideology. I HATE that. It devalues everything that is done by ANY scientist. Does this mean that science is simply irrelevant to debates, other than a vehicle for ideology? This would be such a bad outcome because science does matter for setting policy. But to use science properly, you HAVE to believe it!

    You may consider that I'm being a bit irrational about ID - I think I've given ID as much credibility as it deserves - but live with it. Find another champion for your cause because I do not like the company that Spencer keeps and he just won't cut it with me.

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    So you have a problem with Roy Spencer because, the way you interpret it, his scientific results are simply (or might be) a function of (his religious) ideology? How about those who spin scientific results to suit their political ideology (or are led by their political ideology to draw a certain scientific conclusion)? You have problems with the former; I have problems with the latter.

    Like I?ve said a gazillion times, Global Warming/Climate change IS NOT a scientific issue, it?s a political (ideology) issue.

    I don?t care about your views on ID. I care about the politicization of science.

    To answer another question you asked in a previous message, when you asked me to name one prominent scientist who DID agree with the notion of man-assisted global warming and/or climate change, and you ventured to guess that I couldn?t name even one. I have named James Hansen, so I could name one. But I?m scratching my head to name another ? WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT!

    Politicians, eco-nuts in the entertainment industry, news anchors, news reporters, newspaper editors, political pundits, teachers (not the professor-type teachers), school administrators, college professors (the non-qualified types), and more recently, advertisers to sell their ?green? products, all spout-off about global warming and/or climate change, but not ONE of them could probably answer your question. That?s my point. I do not hear reputable scientists speaking out ? just those who claim there?s a consensus. (And I even listen to Air America and NPR, and I read the New York Times!)

    Go ahead, Neil, YOU name the scientists who are spearheading the Global Warming/Climate change movement ? the ones at the IPCC. Please, name them ? and qualify them! They?re the ones you (and your scientists) support, but who are they? (Heck, I've asked you three or four times! It shouldn't be a hard question to answer.)

    +
    0 Votes
    Locrian_Lyric

    It is okay to put Atheistic existentialism in the results column, even better if it's atheistic Nihilism.

    Don't you DARE put a theistic belief in that column, or you are in trouble.

    Let's all recite the far-left mantra.

    "You have no right to force your beliefs on me. Now shut-up and believe this."

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    belief that "life comes from life", held in opposition to the "spontaneous generation" theory that was prevalent in his day seems to have made him something of a hero to the anti-Darwin crowd over at Answeringgenesis.org. They state that this belief puts him in opposition with his contemporary, Darwin, who (of course) they hate. "Strong opponent of Darwin's theory", they trumpet.

    It just ain't so.

    I challenge you to find a single reference where Pasteur directly referenced Darwin in a critical vein. Actually, don't bother. He didn't. Both are scientific greats and AGAIN you're trying to score points with them and missing the mark.

    Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin. who is next?

    Neil :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    Here are two Canadian "scientists" with opposing opinions. What have we provem here, that even scientist argue the matter?

    Against the GW theory:
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

    For the GS theory:
    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/

    Scientists in this list, former and current scientists, all have different views on the issue, ranging from those who: "Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased, "Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate", "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes", "Believe cause of global warming is unknown and" there are even some who "Believe global warming will benefit human society".

    What does this all illustrate, that "scientists" around the globe are still in disagreement over the causes and effects of GW and if/how man has contributed to it.

    I am not sure what is to be determined one way or another on this thread, the end result is some people believe and care that our emissions effect our environment (or contribute to GW) and some do not care about thier emissions, thier carbon footprint or the atmosphere.

    If the atmosphere is a questionable issue, and NOBODY really knows either way, including yourself or I, why must we focus on possibility when we can focus on facts instead?

    Our emissions harm US and other life forms on Earth every single day. This is 100% undeniable fact.

    So if THAT not a good enough reason to seek more efficient, renewable fuels?

    Or should we be having a discussion on whether or not oil is a renewable resource and whether or not we need to seek better resources from a renewable supply that doesn't have as harmful of an effect on us and the world around us?


    You constantly mention that this is a political issue, but if you remove the questions and possibilities and simply focus on the facts, it quickly becomes an environmental issue again.

    WE can't breathe Carbon Monoxide because it is poisonous, our emissions are rife with Carbon Monoxide.

    So why not focus on reality instead, nothing political about human health facts.

    We need to reduce our carbon footprint to save our own health.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    I found most intriguing the contrast between Dr. Suzuki's insistence that climate change is caused by CO2 and the essentially level line on his atmospheric CO2 graph during the Little Ice Age period between about 1400 and 1850.

    Edit: clarify

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    ... confuse your right to your own beliefs with a right to your own facts. Who do you think you are quoting?

    Let's all recite the far-left mantra. "You have no right to force your beliefs on me. Now shut-up and believe this."

    In reality, nobody fits that description better than the Chicken Little lobbyists of the military-industrial complex and their slaves in Congress, who have been allocating more budget to the Pentagon than it requests, for decades. Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes and Donald Rumsfeld have claimed that anti-ballistic missiles are important to the national defense. They're wrong, and they're not entitled to their own facts. That kind of waste makes all expenditures related to global warming look like chump change. So, why do you care about global warming, and not military waste?

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    "You have no right to force your beliefs on me. Now shut-up and believe this."

    Too funny.

    But you get a Boo! anyway because it's not in the correct column.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I see the graph as somewhat scattered but still inline with previous centuries. Was there a point made about the Little Ice Age and how it was caused or something? I didn' tthink he had equated that to CO2 concentration, unless you are on that bandwagon that thinks people are trying to say that man has causes climate change?

    I think that he is inferring that CO2 is ONE OF THE GASES that contribute to climate change. I don't remeber him referring to teh Little Ice age or attributing THAT climate change to CO2 levels.

    I think perhaps you are feeling that everyone says that CO2 is the cause of climate change. They are not.

    CO2 is ONE gas in our atmosphere that has been attributed to causing rapid climate change, this does not mean that it is solely responsible for all past changes in the Earth's climate. Such an increase in CO2 is being attributed ot the rapid speed at which teh climate is and will change, it is an abnormality, not to be compared with the natural evolution of Earth.

    Text that accompanies the article and graphic:

    The pollutants we pump into our atmosphere are changing its composition and preventing heat from escaping the earth?s surface. Today's atmosphere contains 32 per cent more carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, than at the start of the industrial era. {seems like uncontestible fact to me}

    The result is climate change: altered long-term weather patterns. Global warming, a rise in the average global temperature, is one measure of climate change. And it has already begun - global average temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, and the northern hemisphere is substantially warmer than at any point during the past 1000 years.

    +
    0 Votes
    $$$$$$$$$$

    That's what I call disingenuous. The biggest eco-advocates - the Hollywood types and politicians like Al Gore, Governor Terminator, and Prince Charles - who want other people to reduce their "carbon footprint", but yet they, themselves, emit hundreds of times more carbon emissions with their lavish lifestyles and private travel than the normal person. That's what I call disingenuous. But they buy Carbon Credits to make up for it (in Al Gore's case, from his own company).

    Your argument, still, is based on nothing but collectivist envy of "lavish lifestyles" and distrust of scientists who possess the knowledge and diligence to understand what is beyond your ability.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    These, ah, "scientists" -- their knowledge and diligence automatically entitles them to the grand office of Understander?

    And the work, strictly and thoroughly scientific as later, and still later review may or may not reveal, confers automatically on such a worker the ennoblement of Scientist?

    You would leave it all to the self-appointed?

    Are you?