Re: OT:Global Warming Scandal!

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mvpwi.63496$SV4.52080@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:46:10 -0500, DH wrote:
I said that my "Guess" would be that CO2 levels are decreasing since the
70's. OK, I admit, that statement *may* be incorrect.

What I *should* have said was, "My guess would be that *MAN-MADE* levels
of CO2 have been decreasing since the 70's, especially the emissions
from the more industrialized nations like the US, the UK, and Germany."

And you're still guessing? And isotopic analysis still says you're
wrong.
Go get a fact.

Who says?


These guys:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/allcsiro-mlo.html

Don't bother clicking the links, I provided them for the benefit of people
who actually want to learn. If you did click, you would be in danger of
destroying your perfect state of ignorance.

Perhaps CO2 levels are rising. Perhaps it is caused by the members of the
Kyoto Agreement that are exempt from restictions on High Sulfer content
fuels, etc.


There's no "perhaps" about it.

And how would "caused by members of the Kyoto agreement..." not be "man
made"? Those are still people on this planet. Whether some countries cheat
on the CO2 allowance or not has nothing to do with the science. That's a
policy and treaty issue.

Like I said, you like to bring up irrelevancies to cover your tracks when
you're wrong.

From the BBC: "The UK accounts for 2% of the world's Carbon emissions,
and air travel comprises 6% of that figure."

Are we discussing about where the carbon is being burned? No. I notice
that you do tend to introduce irrelevancies to shift focus when you're
WRONG.

But I'm not wrong.


Yes. You were. Twice. Over facts of VITAL importance to the debate.

When you got your "Geology Minor," did you just pull facts our of your ass
the way you do nowadays?

You were wrong about how long it has been since CO2 levels were last at
380ppm.

It has been at least 650,000 years. Those levels antedate Homo Sapiens.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1313/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5752/1317/
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/11/24/afx2353574.html

by over 400,000 years:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html


You were WRONG about whether CO2 levels were going up or down, saying it was
your "guess" that they had been declining since the '70's. In fact, they
are up >40ppm. Moreover, you have only a "guess" about one of the central
facts, one of the most central facts relating to the Anthropogenic Global
Warming discussion. Even the talking heads screaming that AGW is a "leftist
conspiracy to bring down America" know that CO2 levels are up (they're just
denying a connection between that and the rising temperature).

You know NOTHING, you look up NOTHING and yet you blather on and on and on
and on and claim that Global Warming science is just "conjecture."


You have no clue as to the most basic facts in climate science

I have PLENTY of clues. Most of them are overlooked by the "Man is at
fault" k00ks.

Remember the post I made a couple months ago pointing to carbon levels
over the past couple of hundred thousand years? No? Didn't look it up?

Who's clueless?

You. You haven't the faintest idea what the controversy is about but
that doesn't stop you from continually outgassing about it.

Of course I do:

The k00ks say man is responsible for Climate Change.


Would this be the same k00ks who actually knew that CO2 levels were rising -
when you don't? Who did the isotopic analysis to prove its source? The
same k00ks who understand the physics of gasses and their interaction with
radiation? The same k00ks that can model the interaction of heat
radiation, convection, conductive transfer and absorption on surfaces and in
gasses?

The rest of us with brains know that man is only a very small part of the
equation.


Those of us with actual brains and a drive for knowledge look at what
scientists have produced and give it some respect. There are certainly
scientists who disagree

There are much, much larger forces at work here. The research is focused
on proving man to be the problem.

and, yet,
you think you can determine what's "science" and what's "conjecture."

Where did you get your "Geology Minor?" Romper Room?

Nah, I had excellent Geology teachers.


Who would consider themselves abject failures to have graduated a student
who didn't bother to look up relevant facts before pronouncing things he
didn't understand to be "conjecture."

I made a mistake. I promised myself I would be less abrasive. That was
a mistake.

LOL! Where's the fun in that?!?!?! ;)

Hey, we have our disagreements. So what? It's normal.

Doesn't mean I like you less. Yeah, I get *angry* at times with you, just
like you do with me.

So, we agree to disagree.


No. I've entirely - ENTIRELY - lost any respect or sympathy for you that I
might have had. There is no reason to agree or disagree with you because
you don't have the necessary facts to understand anything involved here and
you don't trouble to get those facts. And, presented with clear evidence
that you're wrong, you press mulishly forward with your guesses and
conjecture. An honest "well, I learned something new today" is beyond you.

I might post to make sure no one else believes there's any foundation to any
crap you post but it has nothing to do with any respect at all for your
point of view. It would be as meaningful to say I agreed or disagreed with
my dog; it's just that, if he poops, we still have to clean up after him.


You know what we call the contract people who base their work on "guess" and
then obstinately stick to their made-up "facts?"

"Ex-contractors."

Of course, we do remember the names of the true prize-winners. We'd
probably talk about you for years. And laugh.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Quantcast