Is it me, or is it really getting hot in here?

February 24, 2005

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to top post.

It has nothing to do with hubris, it has to
do with numbers, carbon dioxide concentrations,
Gt/y hydrocarbons burned, land use modifications,
etc, all quantifiable. Since we have empirically
changed climate, and you have empirically denied
the efficacy of science, then it is easy for you
to claim that we cannot change climate. By
changing climate, we have changed the weather,
since climate is the totality of weather, and
it is also quite easy to see that we have
modified the weather, such that weather events
are more extreme, floods, droughts, storms, etc.
It's not a matter of turning the weather on or off,
it's a matter of reversing the damage, by doing
the necessary science so that we can learn how to
convert solar energy into usable forms of work,
without burning hydrocarbons. However, it appears
that you will not be assisting us in solving this
problem, as you cannot even acknowledge the problem.

Your logic is faulty, not surprising, since
you appear to be an idiot. What we are really
interested in, is whether your idiocy is
inherited, or acquired, nature or nuture?
In other works, were you born an idiot,
or did your daddy teach you to be an idiot?
This is vitally important, because America
is rapidly becoming a nation of idiots,
and we would like to reverse that trend too,
as that would greatly assist us in solving
the climate problem that you idiots have created
for US. The idiocy and climate problems are very
closely related, as anyone can plainly see.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

I like top posts. My comments were about _effecting_ changes in our
climate, not the trite observation that humans burned coal, wood and
fossil fuels, and these _affected_ CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
If you want to talk about real emitters of greenhouse gasses, then look
at sources like termites on the African continent, or the eruption of
Mt. Pinatubo some years ago. These two sources combined far surpass any
of the GG emissions from industrialized countries. But termites don't
care about lawyers, and the U.N. can't tax volcanoes, so we have our
"scientist" friends in the environmental movement blaming humans (their
polite term is forcing factor) for any and all changes that we measure.

And how shall we "reverse the damage"? I suppose the answer is easy if
only wealthy humans are at fault. We tax the hell out of the rich and
give it to the poor -- oh wait -- that's the prescription for reversing
poverty! To fix environmental damage, we tax the hell out of the rich
and give it to rich lawyers who claim to represent the poor. Need CYA
justification? No worries -- scientists of every stripe are lined up,
ready to assist (with their palms upturned) in the worthy cause. Look up
the term "junk science" and you will see what I mean.

I'm all for renewables, solar power, nuclear power, etc., but please
stop pretending that spending X-dollars on mitigating bogus climate
crises will achieve any measurable results outside of certain bank
accounts.


wrote:

February 24, 2005

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to top post.

It has nothing to do with hubris, it has to
do with numbers, carbon dioxide concentrations,
Gt/y hydrocarbons burned, land use modifications,
etc, all quantifiable. Since we have empirically
changed climate, and you have empirically denied
the efficacy of science, then it is easy for you
to claim that we cannot change climate. By
changing climate, we have changed the weather,
since climate is the totality of weather, and
it is also quite easy to see that we have
modified the weather, such that weather events
are more extreme, floods, droughts, storms, etc.
It's not a matter of turning the weather on or off,
it's a matter of reversing the damage, by doing
the necessary science so that we can learn how to
convert solar energy into usable forms of work,
without burning hydrocarbons. However, it appears
that you will not be assisting us in solving this
problem, as you cannot even acknowledge the problem.

Your logic is faulty, not surprising, since
you appear to be an idiot. What we are really
interested in, is whether your idiocy is
inherited, or acquired, nature or nuture?
In other works, were you born an idiot,
or did your daddy teach you to be an idiot?
This is vitally important, because America
is rapidly becoming a nation of idiots,
and we would like to reverse that trend too,
as that would greatly assist us in solving
the climate problem that you idiots have created
for US. The idiocy and climate problems are very
closely related, as anyone can plainly see.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

wrote:
February 24, 2005

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to top post.

It has nothing to do with hubris, it has to
do with numbers, carbon dioxide concentrations,
Gt/y hydrocarbons burned, land use modifications,
etc, all quantifiable. Since we have empirically
changed climate, and you have empirically denied
the efficacy of science, then it is easy for you
to claim that we cannot change climate. By
changing climate, we have changed the weather,
since climate is the totality of weather, and
it is also quite easy to see that we have
modified the weather, such that weather events
are more extreme, floods, droughts, storms, etc.
It's not a matter of turning the weather on or off,
it's a matter of reversing the damage, by doing
the necessary science so that we can learn how to
convert solar energy into usable forms of work,
without burning hydrocarbons. However, it appears
that you will not be assisting us in solving this
problem, as you cannot even acknowledge the problem.

Your logic is faulty, not surprising, since
you appear to be an idiot. What we are really
interested in, is whether your idiocy is
inherited, or acquired, nature or nuture?
In other works, were you born an idiot,
or did your daddy teach you to be an idiot?
This is vitally important, because America
is rapidly becoming a nation of idiots,
and we would like to reverse that trend too,
as that would greatly assist us in solving
the climate problem that you idiots have created
for US. The idiocy and climate problems are very
closely related, as anyone can plainly see.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

You are a little twit-- that I would bet doesn't have even an
undergradute dgree much less any real graduate work in the sciences. Go
back and read very s l o w l y the Crichton article--that is "Dr.
Crichton, M.D." ( Harvard ) to you.
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

The self-styled "climate scientists" are a bunch of whores who all
know, for example, that even though the USA is the largest producer of
CO2, it is also a great CO2 sink that absorbs more CO2 than the US
produces. They just "forget to mention that little insignificant" fact.
And the "hockey stick" whore who gets all the publicity has been forced
to acknowledge that his "model" is riddled with errors and refuses to
divulge many of his formulas--secrets, you know. That is not
"science"--he is a charlatan--but, of course, little minds such as
yours are free to worship at his feet.

The notion that any computer model with dozens of variables which are
guessed at can predict the climate 100 years from now with any accuracy
is pure, unadulterated bull****. You are a joke, sir. What scientific
degress have you earned? What papers have you published?

February 24, 2005

wrote:

wrote:

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to bottom post.

You are a little twit-- that I would bet doesn't have even an
undergradute dgree much less any real graduate work in the sciences.
Go
back and read very s l o w l y the Crichton article--that is "Dr.
Crichton, M.D." ( Harvard ) to you.
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

I'm a physicist, are you familiar with basic physics?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Let's start with scientific methods, since you
don't seem to be familiar with them at all :

http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm

Works of fiction are generally thought of
as even softer than soft evidence, let's just
call it ****, because that is exactly what it is.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

The self-styled "climate scientists" are a bunch of whores who all
know, for example, that even though the USA is the largest producer
of
CO2, it is also a great CO2 sink that absorbs more CO2 than the US
produces. They just "forget to mention that little insignificant"
fact.

That is false, organic sinks sequester less than
20% CO2 of what is emitted by fossil fuel burning :

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/...rpt/057303.pdf

That figure has recently fell to about 10%.

You may now continue to lie to yourself.

America's educational system is either fundamentally flawed,
or it's the inbreeding, what is it, nature or nurture?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

wrote:
February 24, 2005

wrote:

wrote:

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to bottom post.

You are a little twit-- that I would bet doesn't have even an
undergradute dgree much less any real graduate work in the
sciences.
Go
back and read very s l o w l y the Crichton article--that is "Dr.
Crichton, M.D." ( Harvard ) to you.
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

I'm a physicist, are you familiar with basic physics?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Let's start with scientific methods, since you
don't seem to be familiar with them at all :

http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm

Works of fiction are generally thought of
as even softer than soft evidence, let's just
call it ****, because that is exactly what it is.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

The self-styled "climate scientists" are a bunch of whores who all
know, for example, that even though the USA is the largest producer
of
CO2, it is also a great CO2 sink that absorbs more CO2 than the US
produces. They just "forget to mention that little insignificant"
fact.

That is false, organic sinks sequester less than
20% CO2 of what is emitted by fossil fuel burning :

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/...rpt/057303.pdf

That figure has recently fell to about 10%.

You may now continue to lie to yourself.

America's educational system is either fundamentally flawed,
or it's the inbreeding, what is it, nature or nurture?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net



You are brain-dead. You cite to a university web page that doesn't
mention you anywhere to prove that you "are a physicist"; you cite a
study of US CO2 emissions that no where deals with the absorbtion of
CO2 by plant materials in the US thus proving my point of "scientific"
nonsense and no where do you give your credentials. I think you are
probably a pimply faced high school student--this "debate" is a
colossal waste of time. Your web site link is a dead link, btw.

As for the US education system, it is the system a huge proportion of
foreigners attend to get advanced education in the sciences and has
produced the engineers of an economy that dominates the rest of the
world in such things as patents, scientific discovery, and business
innovation. Do you have any clue why the US dollar is the standard unit
of value the world over? That standard is certainly not the pound,
euro, yen, franc, etc, etc , is it? Any clue why?

Where were you educated? What degrees? Simple questions, don't you
think?

February 24, 2005

wrote:

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to bottom post.

You are a little twit-- that I would bet doesn't have even an
undergradute dgree much less any real graduate work in the
sciences.
Go
back and read very s l o w l y the Crichton article--that is
"Dr.
Crichton, M.D." ( Harvard ) to you.
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

I'm a physicist, are you familiar with basic physics?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Let's start with scientific methods, since you
don't seem to be familiar with them at all :

http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm

Works of fiction are generally thought of
as even softer than soft evidence, let's just
call it ****, because that is exactly what it is.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

The self-styled "climate scientists" are a bunch of whores who
all
know, for example, that even though the USA is the largest
producer
of
CO2, it is also a great CO2 sink that absorbs more CO2 than the
US
produces. They just "forget to mention that little insignificant"
fact.

That is false, organic sinks sequester less than
20% CO2 of what is emitted by fossil fuel burning :

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/...rpt/057303.pdf

That figure has recently fell to about 10%.

You may now continue to lie to yourself.

America's educational system is either fundamentally flawed,
or it's the inbreeding, what is it, nature or nurture?

You are brain-dead. You cite to a university web page that doesn't
mention you anywhere to prove that you "are a physicist"; you cite a
study of US CO2 emissions that no where deals with the absorbtion of
CO2 by plant materials in the US thus proving my point of
"scientific"
nonsense and no where do you give your credentials.

It's not a university web page, it's the DOE,
that stands for the Department of Energy, BTW.

So first you claim that all science is nonsense,
and then you demand my scientific credentials.

Your web site link is a dead link, btw.

I can turn my website on or off at will.
Would you like me to post something?

Where were you educated?

At the University of Wisconsin, originally,
but nowadays most everyone is self taught,
expect for the many cretins like you, though.
We used to have to walk to the library, you know.

The question is not my credentials, the question
is that I definitively demonstrated the very first
claim you made to be wrong, with evidence in the
form of scholarly references, and why are you unable
to admit that the US is a net producer of CO2,
even after all biological sequestration sinks
are taken into account. I also quite easily
demonstrated one ridiculous claim made in the
original article posted, the entire article
being laughable at best, but I only chose one
claim for demonstration, that we are about to
enter an ice age, and demonstrated that to be
false, with unambiguous evidence in the form
of EPICA ice cores, with precision gas proxies.

I also give very good references which descibe
generally accepted scientific principles, which
make things like astrophysical models of stars,
black holes, heavy stellar objects, and yes,
even climatological models of the Earth, work
within their scope of applicability. Either
you have faith in science or you don't, but
if you don't have faith in science, then you
should think about what happens every day
when you go out to start your car, and where
that knowledge came from. Do you ever wonder
why in the hell your internal combustion
engine works at all? Hint - it's science.

Apparently science isn't taught very
well in the fifth grade any more, as
evidenced by the content of your posts.

You may now continue lying to yourself.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Take your meds nutcase--you will feel much better.


wrote:
February 24, 2005

wrote:

It is difficult to keep a coherent train of
thought when you continue to bottom post.

You are a little twit-- that I would bet doesn't have even an
undergradute dgree much less any real graduate work in the
sciences.
Go
back and read very s l o w l y the Crichton article--that is
"Dr.
Crichton, M.D." ( Harvard ) to you.
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

I'm a physicist, are you familiar with basic physics?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Let's start with scientific methods, since you
don't seem to be familiar with them at all :

http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm

Works of fiction are generally thought of
as even softer than soft evidence, let's just
call it ****, because that is exactly what it is.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

The self-styled "climate scientists" are a bunch of whores who
all
know, for example, that even though the USA is the largest
producer
of
CO2, it is also a great CO2 sink that absorbs more CO2 than the
US
produces. They just "forget to mention that little
insignificant"
fact.

That is false, organic sinks sequester less than
20% CO2 of what is emitted by fossil fuel burning :

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/...rpt/057303.pdf

That figure has recently fell to about 10%.

You may now continue to lie to yourself.

America's educational system is either fundamentally flawed,
or it's the inbreeding, what is it, nature or nurture?

You are brain-dead. You cite to a university web page that doesn't
mention you anywhere to prove that you "are a physicist"; you cite
a
study of US CO2 emissions that no where deals with the absorbtion
of
CO2 by plant materials in the US thus proving my point of
"scientific"
nonsense and no where do you give your credentials.

It's not a university web page, it's the DOE,
that stands for the Department of Energy, BTW.

So first you claim that all science is nonsense,
and then you demand my scientific credentials.

Your web site link is a dead link, btw.

I can turn my website on or off at will.
Would you like me to post something?

Where were you educated?

At the University of Wisconsin, originally,
but nowadays most everyone is self taught,
expect for the many cretins like you, though.
We used to have to walk to the library, you know.

The question is not my credentials, the question
is that I definitively demonstrated the very first
claim you made to be wrong, with evidence in the
form of scholarly references, and why are you unable
to admit that the US is a net producer of CO2,
even after all biological sequestration sinks
are taken into account. I also quite easily
demonstrated one ridiculous claim made in the
original article posted, the entire article
being laughable at best, but I only chose one
claim for demonstration, that we are about to
enter an ice age, and demonstrated that to be
false, with unambiguous evidence in the form
of EPICA ice cores, with precision gas proxies.

I also give very good references which descibe
generally accepted scientific principles, which
make things like astrophysical models of stars,
black holes, heavy stellar objects, and yes,
even climatological models of the Earth, work
within their scope of applicability. Either
you have faith in science or you don't, but
if you don't have faith in science, then you
should think about what happens every day
when you go out to start your car, and where
that knowledge came from. Do you ever wonder
why in the hell your internal combustion
engine works at all? Hint - it's science.

Apparently science isn't taught very
well in the fifth grade any more, as
evidenced by the content of your posts.

You may now continue lying to yourself.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

February 24, 2005

Take your meds nutcase--you will feel much better

I take that to mean you are unable to
back up your claims with evidence,
nor are you willing to acknowledge error.

Why am I not surprised?


Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

wrote:

Do you disput the article you idiot?

Yes. He is a right wing paranoid lunatic and scientifically illiterate.

If you choose to get your science from half baked works of fiction that
is your problem. He has no more credibility than:

Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision"
or
von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods"
or
Crichton's "State of Fear"

A ripping yarn but nothing like the real science.

Bringing the topic closer to astronomy for once.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Tim Killian wrote:

I like top posts. My comments were about _effecting_ changes in our
climate, not the trite observation that humans burned coal, wood and
fossil fuels, and these _affected_ CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

But given that CO2 (and CH4) is a serious IR absorber you cannot pretend
that we do not have any effect. We already know from CFC's demonstrably
causing ozone depletion at the poles and the Montreal protocol that we
*can* influence global climate directly (though by tiny amounts).

If you want to talk about real emitters of greenhouse gasses, then look
at sources like termites on the African continent, or the eruption of
Mt. Pinatubo some years ago. These two sources combined far surpass any
of the GG emissions from industrialized countries.

No they don't. This is spurious misinformation from some dittohead site.

Very roughly Mt Pinatubo vulcanism had exactly the opposite effect that
a naive treatment would expect. The high altitude injection dust and
aerosols more than compensated for all the CO2 it emitted and in the few
years after the eruption CO2 levels climbed more slowly.

See for example:

http://www.igbp.kva.se/cgi-bin/php/l...&onearti cle=
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/researc...lts_valid.html

On a global average anthropogenic CO2 emissions from burning fossil
fuels are more than 50x those from vulcanism.

"scientist" friends in the environmental movement blaming humans (their
polite term is forcing factor) for any and all changes that we measure.

There are two separate and distinct issues here.
1. Is the science right?
2. What can we or should we do about it?

The scientific evidence for GW is now well past the point that you
cannot pretend that it isn't happening with any serious credibility.
There are still genuine skeptics and the models are imperfect but they
are good enough to show clearly what is happening.

That we lack the political will to do anything serious about it or even
plan to mitigate the effects is very unfortunate.

And how shall we "reverse the damage"? I suppose the answer is easy if
only wealthy humans are at fault. We tax the hell out of the rich and
give it to the poor -- oh wait -- that's the prescription for reversing
poverty! To fix environmental damage, we tax the hell out of the rich
and give it to rich lawyers who claim to represent the poor.

But that isn't the purpose at all. If we act now by taking simple no
regrets energy efficiency measures (like we did in the 70's oil crisis)
then we can buy some more time. Who said anything about more taxes?

You generally *save* money by becoming more energy efficient.

ready to assist (with their palms upturned) in the worthy cause. Look up
the term "junk science" and you will see what I mean.

That beautifully describes most of the scientific whores in bed with oil
companies. Well paid by lobby groups to spread misinformation.

I'm all for renewables, solar power, nuclear power, etc., but please
stop pretending that spending X-dollars on mitigating bogus climate
crises will achieve any measurable results outside of certain bank
accounts.

The crisis isn't bogus. But it isn't so obvious to the general public
yet as to be undeniable. We have to hope that GW affects the USA
directly in some very obvious way so that you have to take note of it.
Florida will be very vulnerable to inundation as sea levels rise.

I was somewhat surprised by the BusinessWeek survey that shows that
perhaps all is not lost in the USA despite the current adminstration:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...20328_2783.htm

I can foresee the GW denialists still busy at work when the sea is
lapping at the White House steps.

Regards,
Martin Brown