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

Bill Todd wrote:
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*.


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.



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,

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a&p=1

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 ...
    ... Their rate of CO2 release may have been far less than ours is today, but they had 400 years to build up total levels in the atmosphere. ... 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. ... 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. ... That is well known fact in tornado areas where hot air from the lower levels merge with the upper cold air. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
    ... I don't give a rat's fucking arse about the polititics of all this ... trading will have any effect on reducing CO2 emissions. ... So let ALL the politicians make huge fools of themselves. ... Trading Scheme its quite OK because Krudd will be removed by the balot ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • 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: 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)