Climate change facts - even if Santorum does not personally believe

On Mar 16, 11:04*am, wrote:

If the wamingistas actually believed their own dire predictions, one
would have to assume that they would first take _drastic_ steps to
reduce _their_ own contributions to any damage. *However, they seem to
only be concerned with making _other_ people who, individually, are
doing far less "damage" make the sacrifices.

Y'all can borrow any of my recycled bicycles, Sunshine.
If it makes you feel more human.
One day at a time, eh?

On 3/16/12 3:58 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I take it you have not studied climate change in any detail.

Ken--I take it you have not studied climate change in any detail.
Certainly you must know that burning tens of millions of years
of sequestered carbon in just a few centuries is not without its
consequences.

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/...fraRadTran.pdf

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...afemeister.cfm


_____________


The Last Great Global Warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...global-warming

Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...lion-years.ars

Global Climate Change Resources
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

On 3/16/12 5:04 AM, wrote:
If the wamingistas actually believed their own dire predictions, one
would have to assume that they would first take_drastic_ steps to
reduce_their_ own contributions to any damage.

So far that assumption of action is not happening with any
significance.

The Last Great Global Warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...global-warming

Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...lion-years.ars

Global Climate Change Resources
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

Just keep allowing gas/ oil prices to climb. This will put everyone (except
the "warmists" and politicians probably) into the poor house, and you'll
have partially solved your "global warming" issue. Of course, you'll then
have to deal with massive unemployment, starvation, and greatly increased
disease and death, but you'll be happy. Oh, and even if all fossil fuel use
was stopped today, how long before the change actually makes even a nudge in
positive climate change? That's assuming man-made global warming even
exists in the first place.

You should be concerned, but you have your priorities all wrong. Human
beings have a "physical" life span, but another part of life that will go
well beyond that. You should be rebuilding morals and families and a firm
belief in the Almighty first, then poor manmade actions and consequences
later.

Man has done some stupid things since his existence and will be ultimately
paying the price, but there is Someone who already knows this and knew from
the time the Universe was Created (and, no, there was no big bang... at
least not the crap they want us to believe).

You have people in charge now just about everywhere who are only helping to
bring on the collapse of everything man knows at this time. Ever take a
close look, I mean really close look at those in charge? I don't mean just
political appointments... take a look at TV stations and networks,
newspapers, etc etc. You should see a definite similarity between each
example.

"That's all she wrote" is about to occur globally. Hope you're ready.

And, oh, I've already taken the liberty of eliminating the normal idiots
here who would normally respond to what they would consider as being an
"offensive" post, so don't bother replying as I won't see it.

Good luck with your cause, although you're not going to get anywhere.
You're looking the wrong direction.

Howe

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:58:48 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

I take it you have not studied climate change in any detail.
Glaciers are made of snow, which is H2O, then compute for ice ages.

I fail to understand the point you are trying to make.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:14:44 -0400, "Howard Miller" wrote:

Just keep allowing gas/ oil prices to climb. This will put everyone (except
the "warmists" and politicians probably) into the poor house, and you'll
have partially solved your "global warming" issue.

We can survive rising oil prices. In fact, they are probably a good
thing in the long run, and will result in less economic harm than the
alternative.

Oh, and even if all fossil fuel use
was stopped today, how long before the change actually makes even a nudge in
positive climate change?

What's a "nudge". If we dramatically cut back CO2 emissions, we'd
start seeing the effects in just a few years. To truly get back to a
stable system will require on the order of a century. The fact that
the system is slow to respond is a poor argument for simply carrying
on without change.

That's assuming man-made global warming even
exists in the first place.

That is certain beyond reasonable doubt.

You should be concerned, but you have your priorities all wrong. Human
beings have a "physical" life span, but another part of life that will go
well beyond that.

Oh dear. Here I thought you were expressing some reasonable economic
opinions (even if I happen to disagree with them), and you have to go
off the rails and demonstrate that you are just another irrational
crackpot. Oh well.

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/16/12 3:58 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I take it you have not studied climate change in any detail.

Ken--I take it you have not studied climate change in any detail.
Certainly you must know that burning tens of millions of years
of sequestered carbon in just a few centuries is not without its
consequences.

1) The "studies" are just that, conjectures. Crude predictions were
made, sloppy measurements obtained, data was manipulated, excuses piled
up, science is based on experiments, and good data acquisition, that's
lacking where CO2 is concerned.

2)The obsession with CO2, clouds the issue of H2O, which in theory
is better absorber, conductor and reflector of Infrared Radiation,
that humans are outputting at 10,000 x CO2 as I explained before,
yet that is largely ignored.

3)Follow the money ... Big Oil, Big Govmonks, Big Science get to
raise prices with less consumer back-lash, raise taxes, get grants,
by equating climate change with CO2.
85% of people are mush minds that believe TV news is true, the con
goes on.
Ken










Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/...fraRadTran.pdf


Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...afemeister.cfm


_____________


The Last Great Global Warming

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...global-warming


Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300
million years

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...lion-years.ars


Global Climate Change Resources
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

On Mar 16, 9:15*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Mar 16, 11:04*am, wrote:



If the wamingistas actually believed their own dire predictions, one
would have to assume that they would first take _drastic_ steps to
reduce _their_ own contributions to any damage. *However, they seem to
only be concerned with making _other_ people who, individually, are
doing far less "damage" make the sacrifices.

Y'all can borrow any of my recycled bicycles, Sunshine.

No, I don't want to use a girl's bicycle.

On Mar 16, 9:51*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/16/12 5:04 AM, wrote:

If the wamingistas actually believed their own dire predictions, one
would have to assume that they would first take_drastic_ *steps to
reduce_their_ *own contributions to any damage. However, they seem to
only be concerned with making _other_ people who, individually, are
doing far less "damage" make the sacrifices.

* *So far that assumption of action is not happening with any
* *significance.

No worries then.

On Mar 16, 4:04*am, wrote:

If the wamingistas actually believed their own dire predictions, one
would have to assume that they would first take _drastic_ steps to
reduce _their_ own contributions to any damage.

Why? *No* individual's action to reduce his own contributions to the
damage will make a real difference. Only government, reducing
*everybody's* contributions, will make the difference.

When you reduce your own contributions to the damage, you get 100% of
the costs, and 0.000001% of the benefts.

Even so, *plenty* of environmental activists _do_ make tremendous
sacrifices, and have low-consumption lifestyles, so as not to
contribute to the damage themselves, and lead by example.

A few whose duties require them to speak to people frequently at
widely separated locations have to take airplanes a lot, but if you
think that Al Gore and a few others are the only "warmingistas"
around, you're mistaken.

Also, I just happened across this news article:

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre...-eu-scientist/

Even so, I *do* agree that for the US to drastically cut back on
energy consumption and depend on unreliable energy sources like wind
and solar is not an option.

Fortunately, we can reduce our carbon impact significantly without
doing that. We know how to produce electricity using U-235 - and even,
thanks to the breeder reactor, common U-238 - as fuel.

Admit the scientific facts - but refuse the agenda of those who don't
want America to be militarily and economically strong!

John Savard