CO2 and global warming

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:25:08 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

Get real.

Very few people in a science newsgroup are going to find this a
persuasive or compelling argument.

Frankly Rand, they are not going to find the utter blather that so
far appears to be your best on global warming any more compelling.
You should at least try to grasp the basics of what is known of the
theoretical and fcatual aspects. Until you haven't or continue to
display your inability to do so, telling you to 'get real' is not
quite that far off the mark.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 02:55:30 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

Get real.

Very few people in a science newsgroup are going to find this a
persuasive or compelling argument.

Frankly Rand, they are not going to find the utter blather that so
far appears to be your best on global warming any more compelling.
You should at least try to grasp the basics of what is known of the
theoretical and fcatual aspects. Until you haven't or continue to
display your inability to do so, telling you to 'get real' is not
quite that far off the mark.

Sander, is there some reason I should even bother to read your posts?

Do *you* have an intelligent critique of Lomborg?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:47:29 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I would hope to take it for granted that the self- and incessantly
repeated- leader of the free world would want to take a lead in what
could be the most important programme in all our futures.


As for waiting for the "Hindus" et al, what would be the point in
pauperizing ourselves

Why would signing the Kyoto accord pauperize anyone?

Alain Fournier

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:26:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


I would hope to take it for granted that the self- and incessantly
repeated- leader of the free world would want to take a lead in what
could be the most important programme in all our futures.


As for waiting for the "Hindus" et al, what would be the point in
pauperizing ourselves

Why would signing the Kyoto accord pauperize anyone?


Because it will significantly reduce the GDP of much of the world, but
particularly, the US, the greatest producer of wealth on the planet,
over the next century. When the world grows poorer, the poorest grow
even more so.

Why would it reduce the GDP of the US (or of any other country)?

Alain Fournier

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in message ...
September 19, 2004

freddo411 wrote:

You have a number of assumptions in your statement that need to be
clarified.

Actually, no, the answers are quite clear.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The answer is yes, including the question :

Is Freddo411 an idiot?

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


Global warming? What ever happened to the idea of global cooling that
was all the rage back in the 1970s? The whole truth of the matter is
that we do not have enough information as to say one way or the other.
Accurate measurements of global temperatures were not recorded until
the early 1880s. This means that we are taking the statistical average
of only 120 years and applying these to a region that covers 4.4
billion years. For those on the CO2 band wagon think of this, CO2
makes up only .0002% of the total atmospheric gasses. Our production
of energy makes up only 13% of the total CO2 output (This includes
both industrial and auto energy requirements.). The rest of the CO2 is
produced of biochemical sources (animal by products such as breathing
and plant decay). To put this all in perspective it would take another
1000 years at our present level of output to increase the atmospheric
CO2 levels to .0003%.

"Wayne_J" wrote ...
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in message ...
September 19, 2004

freddo411 wrote:

You have a number of assumptions in your statement that need to be
clarified.

Actually, no, the answers are quite clear.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The answer is yes, including the question :

Is Freddo411 an idiot?

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


Global warming? What ever happened to the idea of global cooling that
was all the rage back in the 1970s?

It was wrong and it was back in the 1970s.

The whole truth of the matter is that we do not have enough information
as to say one way or the other.
.... providing we look at the data with one eye closed through rose tinted
ocular apparatus.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

While pauperized may have been a hyperbolic term,

So "poetry" is OK for you but others better watch it.

"Consumer of resources per capita" is a meaningless statistic, outside
the context of "producer of resources per capita."

Fossil fuel resouces are used up at a higher rate by the US per capita
at an absurd rate. Try producing fuel in meaningful quantities by
production alone without going underground.

You are not engaged in discussion but word games. It's how smartarses
impose and defend daft and dangerous ideologies on people.

Of course Kyoto isn't perfect - it was designed by a huge committee.
But it is the best hope

On what basis do you say that? Frankly, it's nonsense.

Frankly you have no alternative to offer but a gadarene charge to
oblivion. You may have your own preference for obliteration. I and an
overwhelming majority (and no I can't prove that) retain the will to
live.

I'm starting to think I should take back my admission of hyperbole for
using "pauperize" in the face of this irrational hysteria.

On what basis would you not "bet on him," other than that many of the
politically correct disagree with him? Your bets should be based on
reason and science, not the ignorant opinion of the mob.

Weasel words again. A majority of the science says watch out for
global warming because they want to be "politically correct"?

Evidence please.

That's an absurdly false choice. I'm betting that you haven't even
read his book.

No - there a several books I haven't read as a matter of fact. Some of
the books I haven't read contradict Lomborg - but I have, of course,
no evidence of that.

This discussion would be interesting if you stopped behaving like a
lawyer, defending your client with all means at your disposal,
regardless of your clients innocence or manifest guilt. The issue is a
tad more serious.

September 19, 2004

Wayne_J wrote:

For those on the CO2 band wagon think of this, CO2
makes up only .0002% of the total atmospheric gasses.

Thank-you so much for providing references to your false claims :

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

To put this all in perspective it would take another
1000 years at our present level of output to increase the atmospheric
CO2 levels to .0003%.

The evidence appears to contradict your claim :

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

But you have adequately demonstrated to us that you are an idiot, for which we are grateful.

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

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:24:54 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

While pauperized may have been a hyperbolic term,

So "poetry" is OK for you but others better watch it.

"Consumer of resources per capita" is a meaningless statistic, outside
the context of "producer of resources per capita."

Fossil fuel resouces are used up at a higher rate by the US per capita
at an absurd rate.

So? We are also using them to create wealth, for us and the planet,
at an absurd rate.

You are not engaged in discussion but word games. It's how smartarses
impose and defend daft and dangerous ideologies on people.

Yes, that's right. I'm imposing daft and dangerous ideologies on
people.

much more hysteria, and admission of ignorance of the subject,
snipped

This discussion would be interesting if you stopped behaving like a
lawyer, defending your client with all means at your disposal,
regardless of your clients innocence or manifest guilt. The issue is a
tad more serious.

I'm "defending my client" (i.e., common sense and rationality) because
it is innocent.

September 120, 2004

Rand Simberg wrote:

Fossil fuel resouces are used up at a higher rate by the US per capita
at an absurd rate.

So? We are also using them to create wealth, for us and the planet,
at an absurd rate.

No, you extracting wealth from the planet, for yourself, and a rate that far
exceeds equilibrium. Then you further your lie by saying you are extracting
this wealth *for* the planet. Your lies are very transparent to any informed
mind.

I'm "defending my client" (i.e., common sense and rationality) because
it is innocent.

Your client base apparently does not include truth, scientific methods,
nature, wildlife, or the Planet Earth.

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