Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Hop David wrote:
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".



How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start.

And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in
sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its
absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to
accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present
in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments
wether that is the case or not.

What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means
are you too blazingly stupid to understand?

You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here

How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing?

Clue number 1:

How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda?

Clue number 2:

How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees
compared to +/- 45 degrees?

Clue number 3:

The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota.

Clue number 4:

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

Now, the problem isn´t that it´s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

Cheers, Einar

In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Hop David wrote:
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".



How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start.

And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in
sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its
absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to
accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present
in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments
wether that is the case or not.

What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means
are you too blazingly stupid to understand?

You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here

It's your arguement, not mine.

I refuse to particpate.


How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing?

Clue number 1:

How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda?

Clue number 2:

How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees
compared to +/- 45 degrees?

Clue number 3:

The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota.

Clue number 4:

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Server 13" wrote:

:
: Actually, serious efforts to dispute AGW science are rarely made here.
:Generally it's quotes from the same few bought and paid for liars, or
:amateur science word salads.
:

And the preceding is about the scientific rigour of the 'defenses' of
"AGW science".


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

"Server 13" wrote:

:
:"Bill Ward" wrote in message
:newsan.2007.07.30.19.24.27.232559@REMOVETHISix. netcom.com...
:
: You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
: people with science backgrounds.
:
: What's his science background?
:

Why, he agrees with Bill Ward, of course.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

Hop David wrote:

wrote:
:
: Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".
:
:
:
:How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
:

How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much
smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane.


--
"But if this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry...
Say live and let die."
-- Paul McCartney & Wings

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Hop David wrote:
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".



How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start.

And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in
sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its
absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to
accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present
in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments
wether that is the case or not.

What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means
are you too blazingly stupid to understand?

You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here

It's your arguement, not mine.

I refuse to particpate.


How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing?

Clue number 1:

How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda?

Clue number 2:

How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees
compared to +/- 45 degrees?

Clue number 3:

The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota.

Clue number 4:

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when
all is over and done with.

The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the
move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of
the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come
necessary.

What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly
due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion,
even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production
could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two
countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly
due to the size of theyr respective populations.

If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries
have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over
large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried?

Cheers, Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Hop David wrote:

wrote:
:
: Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".
:
:
:
:How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
:

How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much
smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane.


--
"But if this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry...
Say live and let die."
-- Paul McCartney & Wings

Which still makes it a greenhouse gas.

Cheers, Einar

In article . com,
Einar wrote:

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather
patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile
areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in
places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most
countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy
from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you
happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing
food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater.

And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate changes
-- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of
climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate into
something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its
temperate climate shut down.

Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there won't
be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's
already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT
worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for.
Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near
the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries
with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving
up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you
may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best
avoided if possible.

I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't
happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and
grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a
philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a
long time myself.

Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic
minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted
reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit
without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more.
It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it.

But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and
we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be quite
promising.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

In article ,
Hop David wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:34 -0700, Benj wrote:
(snip unscientific arguments)

You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
people with science backgrounds.


You need people with science backgrounds just like creationists need
people with biology backgrounds.

Yeah. The parallels are quite direct, and in a way, this thread is
interesting because it illustrates the tactics that those with
counter-scientific agendas use to try and deny scientific conclusions.
In the below, "C" stands for Creationists and "D" stands for
global-warming deniers:

TACTIC 1: Invent a "controversy" to give the impression that scientists
can't agree on whether the thing is true or not. Often this is based on
genuine points of disagreement between real scientists, but while those
are about fine details and the scientists are in vehement agreement
about the big picture, the agenda-pushers claim that there is
disagreement about the big picture.
C1: Pointing to disagreements over continuous evolution vs. punctuated
equilibrium, they claim that scientists can't agree on whether evolution
is true.
D1: Pointing to disagreements in the detailed predictions among various
models, they claim that scientists can't agree on whether global warming
is true.

TACTIC 2: Trot out "experts" drummed up somewhere who are not real
scientists, but can play one on TV (and in books, magazines, etc.), to
argue against reality in scientific-sounding terms. Real scientists
easily spot these phonies and can pick their arguments apart with one
hand behind their backs, but the average public can't, which seeds doubt
and also helps bolster tactic 1.
C2: Duane Gish, for example. He's got a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and is a
foremost "Creation Scientist" (never mind the oxymoron). I studied this
guy in college; he's a real nut job. My science professors all agree
he's a bad scientist, and my religion professor disparages his approach
to religion as well.
D2: I don't have names handy at the moment, because I never had to study
these bozos like I did Gish, but I've read about them. Probably one of
the deniers in this thread will trot out their favorite Denier Scientist
if we poke them enough.

TACTIC 3: Yield ground, regroup, and attempt to hold a new position.
C3: "Well, OK, we can't deny the clear demonstrations of evolution
happening on a micro scale, but we still deny that *macro* evolution
ever happened." Or, "OK, maybe evolution happens, but it's all
according to the grand plan of some God^H^H^H Intelligent Designer."
D3: "OK, global warming is real, but it's a natural process and humans
aren't to blame, therefore we still don't need to modify our behavior."
Or, "OK, global warming is real and it's our fault, but a nice toasty
world sounds nice to me, think I'll buy some beachfront property in
Alaska."

It's actually comforting to see Tactic 3 brought out, because it means
the anti-scientific forces are losing. Amazing how long this takes,
though -- evolution is *still* a controversy in some schools in the
Bible Belt, every 5-10 years or so. Quite ridiculous when you think
about it. But then, actually thinking about it is dangerous, as if done
carefully, it may lead to the truth!

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Einar wrote:

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather
patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile
areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in
places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most
countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy
from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you
happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing
food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater.

And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate changes
-- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of
climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate into
something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its
temperate climate shut down.

Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there won't
be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's
already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT
worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for.
Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near
the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries
with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving
up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you
may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best
avoided if possible.

I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't
happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and
grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a
philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a
long time myself.

Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic
minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted
reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit
without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more.
It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it.

But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and
we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be quite
promising.

I do not deny that the climate is warming, our instruments seem to indicate
that it is (have we accounted for all of the sources of error?), but the
idea that the warming is man-made, and that it will increase without bound
to cataclysmic proportions is untestable speculation. There are plenty of
stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the Sun)
that historically track the data better than AGW and hopelessly inadequate
computer models.

What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur if
governments worldwide increase their control over societies, forcing them to
fall into line with dreamed-up regulations, economies be damned. That is
historical, reproducible and testable, and I think that has a much higher
likelihood to be a global disaster than any climate change.