Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Maverick wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:

Maverick wrote:

...

Funny that they don't take into account the medieval warming period around 1200 ad. And then the following mini-iceage.


The goals of the paper in question, while inadequately realized, were at least admirably specific, and they did not include examination of prior periods. Since the author clearly had a bit more on his plate than he could adequately handle, probably a prudent choice - but give him credit for recognizing up front the value in limiting complexity and potentially extraneous circumstances as much as possible.

Global warming has

been taking place since 1680.


Give or take a few decades, anyway. Since the use of fossil fuels started rising significantly at around that time (and had in fact been going on at lower levels for millennia before that), a connection between the two is hardly inconceivable.

The population numbers at that time period are insignificant for any fossil fuel usage.

No, they're not - not with the beginning of an industrialized society which upped the per-capita releases significantly.

And before 1200 ad, the numbers even lesser. The plagues on this planet have kept population densities down. Only now have plagues been kept in check for now.

The last significant plague in England occurred in 1665 ('the plague year'). And world population has been rising since about 1000 A.D. (before which there was a significant drop, bringing the numbers down almost back to the level they had been at the beginning of that millennium): population rose fairly slowly on average from 1000 until about 1400, and with consistent accelerating growth since then until the present.

At 500 million people world population was hardly negligible in 1600. It had reached 1 billion by 1800. Their rate of CO2 release may have been far less than ours is today, but they had 400 years (the last 250 or so in an industrial economy) to build up total levels in the atmosphere.

But people are still overlooking the CO2 as plant food.
I still like to eat and stay alive and with the population increasing, we'll need more food.

Pure drivel, as I already observed, unless you have citations to back up the thesis that CO2 levels may become dangerously *low*.



We need a certain amount of CO2 for plant

growth and also population growth, else we will see major problems.


If we're in any danger of having too *little* CO2 in our atmosphere any time soon I've certainly heard nothing about it - so please provide citations if that comment was meant to be relevant.


At 0.043% CO2 levels we aren't about to have problems.

Based on your response, you appear to have as much difficulty understanding what I said as you have understanding most of the substantive arguments in this area.

The numbers that
are being bandied about sound big in their tonnage, but also compare them to the natural numbers that range in the trillions of tons. This is the comparison that many GWers leave out and all it shows is a fear factor and nothing more for now.

At 0.043% concentration of many poisons in your body you'd be *dead*. It's not the absolute magnitude, but the relative effect - and a significant change in a small number creates a significant effect if that small number had much of any effect to begin with (which most competent scientists believe it does, whether laymen like you can appreciate it or not).

What the politicians around the world
would like to do is to create carbon credits... you know... MONEY!
That is the problem. This can also be used as a blackmail scheme between countries.

That's the spirit: when rational argument fails, invent a conspiracy - never mind that the money the energy industry pours into political coffers makes it far more likely that politicians would oppose the idea of monkeying around with their sources of revenue (and indeed a great many politicians did for many years, and a significant number still do).

By creating a strawman, and with everyone in
agreement, it can live.

What I do see is that with the current violent weather patterns is the collision of cold air with very warm air. In the future and following the trend we will see less violent weather patterns.


That would be interesting if you have some credible citations to support it (you can take it as a given that the propaganda film discussed above does not qualify as such), since a lot of reporting has suggested somewhat the opposite.

That is well known fact in tornado areas where hot air from the lower levels merge with the upper cold air. The film that you think is propaganda refutes the bogus claims of the political agendists that are pushing their absurd program.

I'm afraid that you're (oh-so-typically) continuing to bluster while studiously attempting to ignore the challenge to provide *credible* (i.e., authoritative rather than "Gee - I saw it on TV, so it must be true!") citations that predict storm amelioration as a result of global warming. Put up, or shut up.

Most of the IPCC is based on junk science.

You're really starting to sound like boob: despite the admission by the film's creators that they doctored some of their data to 'make it fit better' and the active renunciation by one of their main presenters, your own biases make their admittedly falsified claims more credible to you than far less disputable claims that you dislike.



What isn't addressed by GW groups is that the other planets in this solar system are also heating up.


I'd be interested in credible citations for that as well: it would certainly not directly refute the thesis that our own activities are exacerbating the problem, but it would raise legitimate questions as to exactly how much they may be.

Check out some of NASAs statements on the subject.
This is the part where I always encounter others "I can't believe it" or "provide proof".

And rightly so: the burden of proof (when you're disputing the consensus of scientists far more qualified to form opinions in this area than you are) is on you. I'm wasting enough time countering your drivel here as it is, without taking yet more time to track down every wild claim those of your ilk come up with.

So (once again) put up or shut up: if there's credible warming data for Mars and Venus (the two planets most likely to experience something like the same solar conditions that we do - though one with far less greenhouse-like behavior and the other with far more), by all means trot it out so we can assess how much it might be affecting the temperature increases here.

....

I do see that our scientists don't

know enough yet to make the current claims they have been making so far.


Actually, it seems likely to me that those scientists are in a far better position to make that determination than you are.

Yeah, sure, and you do eh?

No, you idiot: *they* do, and therefore I give their opinions far more weight than those of random wackos off the street.


Perhaps you don't know what their precise claims are, or perhaps you don't understand their exact bases for them.

Oh, I know what their bogus claims are and they should be ashamed of themselves. All they are really looking for is large sums of grant money.

Back to conspiracies again, I see. Are you one of those people who gets all their 'information' from Rush Limbaugh?

- bill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... But people are still overlooking the CO2 as plant food. ... Pure drivel, as I already observed, unless you have citations to back ... What the politicians around the world ... I know what their bogus claims are and they should be ashamed of ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... And what happened between then and now hasn't a damned thing to do with CO2. ... The real dangers is from pollution with dirty devices that pump real pollutants into the air that do affect life. ... when rational argument fails, invent a conspiracy - never mind that the money the energy industry pours into political coffers makes it far more likely that politicians would oppose the idea of monkeying around with their sources of revenue. ... the burden of proof (when you're disputing the consensus of scientists far more qualified to form opinions in this area than you are) is on you. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: global cooling
    ... politicians as global cooling and remove the carbon tax and all ... associated `global warming` taxes on cars etc. (as a famous UK ... a plateau since then, and at a plateau at a high level due to the ... That 1/8 puts CO2 as slightly less ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... the initial CO2 release occurred as a result of large volcanic activity in Siberia. ... Let's all stop listening to politicians and start listening to scientists. ... Currently greater than 95% of more than 10,000 peer reviewed scientists believe that the global warming is here, and that it's man made. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... Pure drivel, as I already observed, unless you have citations to back ... up the thesis that CO2 levels may become dangerously *low*. ... There is a website somewhere, it escapes me just now, and area of research devoted to calculating the positive effects of CO2 on vegetation, crop yields etc. IIRC they estimate that crop yields have been significantly enhanced due to the higher availability of CO2, CO2 being the O2 for plants. ...
    (comp.os.vms)