Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" wrote in message
...


Wow! The I guess China as the major emitter better be required to
sign-on to any new agreement replacing the useless Kyoto accord, right?


I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon. But there's no way the solution is a group
of self-appointed scientists 'planning' our biosphere like it's some
cheap sci-fi plot.

The solution is political, not technological.

Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
nature.

It won't be scientists that save the day, but the mobs of
people over the world.rampaging for democracy.


Jonathan


s

On Dec 7, 6:21*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:

I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon.

Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. *Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Naw, Jonathan should plan to move to southern Alaska in his old age
as their will be too much mud further north.

And we will be long and safely gone into the ether of eternity.

Trig

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon.


Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

How'd we cause it

Thanks for replying

My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
plausible explanation for the recent warming.
Maybe you should look at this chart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think NASA's opinion is pretty good for
many reasons...

"NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science
spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the
Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere,
cyrosphere."

"In 2004, NASA's spending on climate science exceeded all
other Federal agencies, combined. NASA spent $1.3 billion
on climate science that year, out of a $1.9 billion total."
http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/


Your source would be what?


..and what do you propose we do?


My post already addressed that question.


Jonathan


s



--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Dec 9, 2:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
"Jonathan" wrote:

I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon.

Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. *Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

How'd we cause it

Thanks for replying

My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
plausible explanation for the recent warming.
Maybe you should look at this chart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. *Hell, even show evidence
that it is. *The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
warming, not leads it.

NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
during that same decade and preceding it.

Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
other plausible explanation for recent warming".

Perhaps you should learn to read and think?



Your source would be what?

My source for what? *I didn't make a claim.



..and what do you propose we do?

My post already addressed that question.

Well, no, it didn't, unless you think 'something' is a definitive
action.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather

when global warming floods new york the super wealthy will begin to
take notice and action. coming to work in boats and getting their 5
grand a pair shoes wet will force them to do something..

anyone with a aquarium knows if you try keeping too many fish the
aquarium becomes unstable and fish start dying....

aquariums have carrying capacity and so may our earth........

On Dec 9, 3:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather

Yeah, so?

And just by the way, there's ALWAYS been 'weird weather'. *Never heard
of the Dust Bowl Days?

The sky is falling! *THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

the dust bowl was caused by farming practices at the time, they plowed
everything........

when they went back to strips of farm land and strips of native
grasses things returned to normal..

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
....
Perhaps you should learn to read and think?
....


Some form of projection, obviously.


--
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008

On Dec 7, 4:31*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.

The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
the wrong direction die.

Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
nature.

Yes, they do - on one level. Where there is feedback, they mimic
nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
directly borne by the polluter - they don't.

You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.

John Savard

On Dec 7, 7:21*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:

I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon.

Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. *Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions
have implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the
scientific community*.

Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming
belong in the same loony bin with creationists.

The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard
scientific fact.

None the less, there _are_ two sides to this question. It isn't going
to do the world any good if China builds up its war machine on burning
coal while the Western democracies go back to a simpler time with the
energy they can get from wind and solar power.

So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.

John Savard

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:21Â*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:

I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something needs
to be done soon.

Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Â*Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions have
implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the scientific
community*.

It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know ****.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
got a D in "earth science", his only science class.

A fallacy based on a laughably false premise. It doesn't get stupider
than that.

Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming belong
in the same loony bin with creationists.

Non Sequitor. Galileo had a idea that went against the scientific
community. Darwin had an idea that went against the scientific community.
Einstein (Lorentz & Fitzgarld, really) had an idea that went against the
scientific community. Lemaitre had an idea that went against the
scientific community.

Again, you gibber a silly non-sequitor based on a false premise.

The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard scientific
fact.

Utter bull****. There is no predictive hypothesis; every hypothesis
failed to predict the last decade of non cooling. There has been a HUGE
amount of evidence that the whole thing is a damned fraud: faked data,
data that is altered by computer programs, use of peer review to suppress
the real climate science that shows CO2 has little to do with climate
change, the boycotting of journals that publish the truth...

It's a damned lie!

On Dec 9, 6:05*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:21*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:

I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something needs
to be done soon.

Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. *Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions have
implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the scientific
community*.

It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know ****.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
got a D in "earth science", his only science class.

A fallacy based on a laughably false premise. It doesn't get stupider
than that.

Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming belong
in the same loony bin with creationists.

Non Sequitor. Galileo had a idea that went against the scientific
community. Darwin had an idea that went against the scientific community.
Einstein (Lorentz & Fitzgarld, really) had an idea that went against the
scientific community. Lemaitre had an idea that went against the
scientific community.

Again, you gibber a silly non-sequitor based on a false premise.

The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard scientific
fact.

Utter bull****. There is no predictive hypothesis; every hypothesis
failed to predict the last decade of non cooling. There has been a HUGE
amount of evidence that the whole thing is a damned fraud: faked data,
data that is altered by computer programs, use of peer review to suppress
the real climate science that shows CO2 has little to do with climate
change, the boycotting of journals that publish the truth...

It's a damned lie!

You just keep telling yourself that. The nurses will be along soon.
What's your name again, so that you can tell them?