Re: BBC Sci/Tech

D Peter Maus wrote:
Whatever wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Whatever wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

You're spot on, here. But what no one's addressing is that CO2 is a comparatively small item in the list of greenhouse gasses.

The primary greenhouse gas, by more than an order of magnitude compared to C02, is water vapor.

Man's contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1%. That's 1% of the 4% of CO2 asserted to contribute to global warming.

The daily variation alone of the mass of water in the atmosphere dwarfs mankind's contribution of C02 to the atmosphere and the lion's share of that is from biomass...ie, human populations exhaling into to the atmosphere. Most of that from China.

But by far, the largest contribution of C02 to the atmosphere is volcanism.

We need to write out Congresspersons and urge them to initiate legislation regulating and properly taxing volcanism. And we need to do this now.


Please do your homework Peter.





I do my homework, there, Buckwheat.

Please don't quote political gibberish at me and call it science.

Apparently you don't recognize science when you see it or you didn't like what you saw on those webpages. It's all based on peer reviewed research done by scientists who are not trying to advance a political agenda, unless of course you believe in a worldwide global warming conspiracy theory.

To reiterate, human production of CO2 vastly exceeds that from volcanoes and water vapor does not have the long term green house effect like CO2 in the atmosphere. I can direct you to countless more sources for this information but I doubt you would take the time to read any of it. At least I tried.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html

http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano_watch/000440.shtml



You can direct me to anything you choose. Very likely, I've read it already. I'd already read your cited pages. And, I know this is a stretch, some books on the subject. Actual books. Remember those? I've been interested in this issue since before the global cooling scare of the 70's.

It was the subject of my meteorology paper in College.

Your personal insults aside, the ongoing insistence that the debate is over, that the science is settled, flies in the face of the repression of opposing opinion.

Calls for the revocation of certification for TV meteorologists who do not sign on to the agenda--this by a government official--as happened earlier this year; calls for the revocation of federal funding for research programs investigating alternative causes, as is happening all over academia; and the number of academicians 'who are not trying to advance an agenda' who speak in lock step, grade only those papers on the correct and proper side of the global warming issue, and silence questions raised in opposition in the classroom, as is happening in the classrooms of all my college professor/teacher friends, are all shrieking testimony to the very political nature of this matter.

Politics is not science.

In a series of exchanges less than a month ago on this very newsgroup, Telamon pointed out that one poster had engaged in debate tactics to further his cause, and that the truth does not require the tactics of debate to be recognized. Similarly, real science does not support nor require consensus. Nor does it require the silencing of opposition, the suppression of contrary position, indoctrination tactic, or the blackmail of withdrawn funding to make its case valid.

And real science doesn't employ insults when someone presents opposition.

Politics, however does.

In that, you're assertions are more politics than science. And as such are dismissed. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

Try being scientific, and less insulting, and you may find your case more easily accepted.

Eric Richards asked me some months ago, why I like and respect David Gleason. And my answer was simple. Because he makes his case with fact, and science where applicable. He explains his reasoning and his methodology, and despite the fact that he and I mostly disagree on substantive issues, he has not resorted to insults to silence my points and assertions. I don't agree with him often. And things have gotten heated. But never nasty. And he's never attempted to silence me. And though we disagree, I do see where he's coming from, and understand his position. And how he arrived at it. On the other hand there are those who are not so reasoned, and who do not remain civil. Those I have little use for.

Sorry, personality quirk. It comes with the ***.

By that same thinking, you have resorted to insults to dismiss my comments. You lose.

Btw, if you'd read them more carefully, you'd have noticed the tongue-in-cheek ribbing. There, too, you lose.

The more I read about the global warming issue, the more I am becoming convinced that man's responsibility in warming the planet is mythical. Solar output is up. Which releases C02 from the oceans. Volcanism is up. So is biomass release of C02. Put in perspective, human production of C02 is trivial. Mt St. Helens released more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere in 36 hours than all of mankinds industrial and mechanical pollution combineed. And the real culprit in what warming exists--and even THAT appears to be open to debate--appears to be related to solar output. Which, if you'd bother to read your own cites, explains the concurrent warming of Mars, and the disappearance of the polar caps there.

This despite the fact that they closed the all the Hummer dealers on Mars several years ago. And UnoCal sold all their stations to Greenpeace for conversion into Starbucks'.

But, of course, I disappoint you.

Oooh...gosh. There I am dismissed out of hand, and insulted out of my self esteem. If you'll hold the rope for me, I'll just put my head in the noose now.

Can you do that?

It would help reduce global warming, you know.




D Maus:
You have facts. They have "Carbon Credits."
Which will save the planet first.
Ken
.

Loading