..Sci. American article Ends Debate over Global Warming! "...more dire than even the bleak...

Jonathan wrote:
"Jo Schaper" jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

"...Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas; unlike
other greenhouse gases, it is controlled principally
by temperature."
[...]

Thank you..
The information is a strong confirmation of what every intelligent and
honest person already strongly suspects.

A lot of those in denial like to point to the fact that water vapor
is the strongest greenhouse gas, not co2. While implying
human activity doesn't effect water vapor concentrations.

But the truth is that as co2 levels rise, the warming will cause
the levels of water vapor to rise, starting a very strong
feedback cycle and acceleration of global warming.



I would suggest all readers to refer to your posted information in
order to rebutt any subsequent idiocies attempted by the 'no-warming'
lunatics and their hired stooges.


It's time to stop arguing over the facts, enough facts are in.
It's time to begin discussing potential solutions.
Well, jonathan, as my mom used to say: "charity begins at home."

I haven't seen any solutions out of you, yet. And don't say your SPS
system is the solution. That's akin to saying the Martians are going to
save us.


Jo, an aggressive SSP program ...was...our official policy
for NASA as set by Congress just before President Bush
cancelled it in favor of ...more moon rocks. Congress had
already slated in hundreds of millions of dollars to get
large scale flight demonstations up and running.

Not more moon rocks. More money for Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, et al.

They've got a very successful pro-oil agenda. It's working. We still
have nearly all the oil we want, but at profit making prices. That's
what it's all about, no?


The first flight of a large SSP satellite was to be in 2006.

I am not alone here, much of our govt and NASA feels the
same way. That SSP was, and should be again, our single
biggest national scientific priority. Why do you think SSP
is such a pipe-dream? I can show it's not at all.

Ok, show me one big corporation behind this 'untested' technology. Not
the Government. I don't think the Government should be in the energy
business.


SSP is simply the difference between a future of ever
more expensive and dirtier energy. Or a future
of ever cheaper and cleaner energy as time
goes on.

I mean chrissakes, oil is almost $80 a barrel now.
It was less than $10 a barrel under Clinton.
What do you need, a hammer over the head?

Nope. What you need is an introduction to politico-economic reality.
Not many oil wells in Arkansas. A few. But Little Rock is nothing like
Dallas and/or Houston, or the Wyo. oil fields. If the next President is
from a non-oil producing area, expect the current oil fiasco to subside
somewhat.


The trends all favor the 'big idea', an elegant solution.
It's only a matter of time before the quickly growing
Global Warming movement finds and embraces SSP
as the long term answer.

I don't trust the altruistic "Global Warming movement." Follow the money.



And a long term answer not just to climate change, but
to world-wide peace and prosperity.

Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too?

I mean, would you at least admit it's a better
idea than more moon rocks???

I like moon rocks. I'm not sure we need to get more of them, but moon
rocks are OK.

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

....IPCC Assessment Forecasts"


The very latest scientific evidence is comprehensively
reviewed, leaving very little doubt that this long-running
debate over human caused global warming is over.


4 out of 5 scientists agree.

No Global Climate Model is predictive. You knew that, didn't you?

--
NeoLibertarian

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan

Jonathan wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Jonathan wrote



It's time to stop arguing over the facts, enough facts are in.
It's time to begin discussing potential solutions.



Well, since many leftists, like RF Kennedy, Jr, have taken to calling
AGW skeptics as "traitors," it's time to start dealing with the issues
on those grounds. Consequently, anyone who protests the construction of
new nuclear power plants needs to be arrested and tried on treason
charges. Yes?




Or maybe we should all appeal to our higher instincts.


OK. Feed Greenpeacers to sharks, then. Sharks are getting endangered,
you know. They could benefit from the added protein... and human society
could benefit from a reduction in the "idiot gene" that is so dominant
in the modern "environmentalist" movement.


Solving the global warming problem means solving
the global energy problem. Why shouldn't it be America
that comes up with the solution?


Indeed, which is why we should be cranking out the terawatt-class nuke
reactors.


America could own the future ...if we make Space Solar Power
a national priority.

SSP is a great option, but it'll take decades to make a meaningful dent.
Reactors could be in production in just a few years, were it not for the
moron Socialist brigades and their lawyers. Once that group fo genetic
defectives is out of the picture, SSP becomes a lot easier, as you can
launch a vast nuclear-powered infractructure into the universe with much
less interference.

--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken

In article .com,
john fernbach wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:06 pm, wrote:

[...]

Thank you..
The information is a strong confirmation of what every intelligent and
honest person already strongly suspects.

I would suggest all readers to refer to your posted information in
order to rebutt any subsequent idiocies attempted by the 'no-warming'
lunatics and their hired stooges.- Hide quoted text -


I'll echo the "thank you." But I think intelligent & honest people
who understand the import of this article need to recognize that most
of the opposition to action on GW -- not ALL of it, but most of it --
is NOT driven by superstition, or by ignorance of the science.

Most of the opposition to action on GW is driven by ECONOMICS.

Yes, there's lots of money in Global Warming catastrophe augury.


--
NeoLibertarian

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...


"...Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas; unlike
other greenhouse gases, it is controlled principally
by temperature."
[...]

Thank you..
The information is a strong confirmation of what every intelligent and
honest person already strongly suspects.


A lot of those in denial like to point to the fact that water vapor
is the strongest greenhouse gas, not co2. While implying
human activity doesn't effect water vapor concentrations.

But the truth is that as co2 levels rise, the warming will cause
the levels of water vapor to rise, starting a very strong
feedback cycle and acceleration of global warming.

Wtf?


I would suggest all readers to refer to your posted information in
order to rebutt any subsequent idiocies attempted by the 'no-warming'
lunatics and their hired stooges.



It's time to stop arguing over the facts, enough facts are in.
It's time to begin discussing potential solutions.

Tee hee.

I say, let's get everyone in the village to go save the Shepherd Boy.

--
NeoLibertarian

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:


"Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that
space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an
agency should be all about" - He stated that NASA's lack
of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed,
"cries out for further research," may be because NASA wants
to focus on human space flight,

The government doesn't create energy sources, it taxes them.

The government isn't going to cure $80 barrels or an imagined Global
Climate Change Catastrophe.

NASA and solar power aren't the answer, because you're not asking the
right questions.

--
NeoLibertarian

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan

In article .com,
BradGuth wrote:

If there's anything else terrestrial that's nonhuman, as such you
folks need to look hard at our badly failing magnetosphere, that's
going away at roughly -.05%/year.

At half the present day magnetosphere intensity, from that point on
down the road of most all environmental things failing us, we will not
have to worry about how extra hot and nasty Earth has been getting
because, our frail DNA will not have sufficiently evolved into being
rad-hard enough. The SAA contour will be right on the deck and
perhaps as much as 25% of this planet will have become less than human
DNA friendly (especially by day).

Don't bother the "scientists." They're too busy having some fun with the
villagers.

--
NeoLibertarian

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan

On Aug 2, 6:31 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Further, with global warming, there is the potential for a lot more
habitable land (e.g. Siberia, northern North America, Greenland), so
that should counteract any land losses,

This is a pipe dream. You just aren't looking
at all the factors. Try visiting the permafrost
during a heat wave.

On Aug 3, 3:58 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 2, 6:31 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]

Further, with global warming, there is the potential for a lot more
habitable land (e.g. Siberia, northern North America, Greenland), so
that should counteract any land losses,

This is a pipe dream. You just aren't looking
at all the factors.

Said the co2 blinded tard.

Try visiting the permafrost
during a heat wave.

That's all the factors?
More of your special brand of 'science'?

co2puke

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 2, 6:31 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]

Further, with global warming, there is the potential for a lot more
habitable land (e.g. Siberia, northern North America, Greenland), so
that should counteract any land losses,

This is a pipe dream.

Is it impossible?

Is it improbable?

You just aren't looking
at all the factors.

Post away! I have an open mind and am willing to learn.

Try visiting the permafrost
during a heat wave.

No thanks.

But let's not forget that we are talking about a potential
transformation taking many decades, if not centuries or more.