Re: OT: 35% More CO2


"Hawke" <desmithe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13ccse9r8c7aj96@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I want to know where they obtained the 1750 CO2 levels, since there
were
no means for such measurements, nor did anyone care what the
measurements
were.

Jim Chandler

I think they're getting those old CO2-level measurements by analyzing
the
air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice.

Highly suspect since CO2 is highly soluble in cold water
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Well, you can have that out with the climatologists and other scientists
who
do it. Chances are they know what they're doing.

--
Ed Huntress


You know, all the guys who question the facts about global warming and the
scientists with Ph.Ds up the ying yang are right winger types. Boy are
they
skeptical. They don't accept a word or believe anything without tons of
citations and reams of proof, and then they're still not sure to believe
it.
But let an uneducated talk radio guy like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh
say
something and they accept it as if it came from Jesus himself. There is no
question of any of it as long as it comes from one of their conservative
heroes. Funny really. Too bad they don't use the same sense of distrust
when
it comes to their radio icons. Rush could tell them the moon is made of
green cheese and that would be it. They would go to their graves thinking
the moon was made of cheese. Makes one wonder what makes people act like
that.

Hawke

As Gunner says, they're all faith-based believers.

I have to plead agnosticism on this issue. I certainly don't know enough
about the science to have much of an opinion.

It's sometimes entertaining to see Larry or one of the other skeptical
libertarians try to make a scientific case opposed to the mainstream
global-warming scenario. They're smart guys, but they aren't that smart
about all of the subjects on which they hold forth. And it's obvious from
the way they select their "evidence" that their method is "draw conclusions
first, and then find some data that seems to support it." Today, finding
such data is almost always easy.

The entire herd of keyboard-tapping Googleists have really changed the tenor
of these discussions. Today, you can find some smoke-blowing "authority" to
support any position on any issue. It's a piece of cake to confound logic,
legitimate research, and a century of serious science on anything, if you
think your audience doesn't know any more than you do, and doesn't have tens
of hours, the research skills, nor the inclination to go look it all up and
study enough to know what they're talking about.

It even works on simple subjects, like the definition of "atheist," if they
can blow enough smoke, repeat their baloney a hundred times, and ignore
something as simple as following-through on the definitions of a few key
words.

I know Gunner's methods (he's improved his methodology and he's lightened
up, but I don't know if he's just mellowing with age) and I've been
observing Stuart's. Stuart is still in a fairly primitive stage, in which
bluster is an essential ingredient of his method. For example, he's Googled
enough to know there are prescriptive dictionaries and descriptive ones, and
that the old-time grammarians scoff at the descriptive ones. But he didn't
read enough to learn which was which -- he got Webster's exactly
backwards -- and he probably doesn't know that almost everything is going
descriptive (including the holy grail of American scholarly style, the Univ.
of Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, and the Oxford English
Dictionary), nor why that is so. He didn't expect that a member here has
been involved with this subject on an almost daily basis for over 30 years,
as an editor for one of the world's largest publishers and also the world's
fourth-largest medical/science communications agency. Stuart started with
the bluster and opprobrium but, you may have noticed, he suddenly stopped
short and reverted to his original, less academic assertions.

My guess is that he Googled some more and found out that he had it
upside-down. The interesting thing to observe about Stuart's approach is
that his reaction in these cases is to ignore the issue and turn up the
bluster another notch, apparently hoping to distract attention from the fact
that he's just stuck his foot about 18 inches down his throat.

There was a time when these discussions were carried on in the spirit of
learning and sharing information, but ideology seems to have permeated
everything and turned most discussions into a battle. "Google is your
friend," Gunner used to say. In fact, it can work either way. It can be your
friend if you're honestly trying to uncover the facts. Or it can be just the
friend you need if you need logistic support for a misdirected argument, one
who supplies your ammunition so you can keep shooting no matter whether your
point is based on good judgment or just an ideological commitment. It's not
nearly as informative about facts but it gives us some insights into human
nature.

--
Ed Huntress



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reintroducing myself.
    ... expressing an opinion that differs from someone else's opinion, ... each person lives in his private world, with his own set of facts. ... I don't have an opinion on the complex measurements one ... whatever the cancer survival rates may be. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Fact
    ... Facts are sometimes interpreted and presented in different way by different ... > relative to the measuring apparatus. ... > measurements of speed are relative to the measuring apparatus, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A cry for help!
    ... These are correct facts, correct SR facts. ... measurements are done with the exact same SR ... You need to understand that a clock second will have different duration ... Light path length of ruler /the absolute time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fact
    ... We find that no matter how the apparatus is ... BTW nobody else calls vacuum a "medium". ... measurements of speed are relative to the measuring apparatus, ... > account of the above facts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)