|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Jul 30, 3:00 pm, Benj wrote:
Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too huge to read on Google! What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window. We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and using clever wording and lies to further their agenda. The Global warming thing is a great example. There is scientific evidence for AGW. However, the long term effects are still open to question. This is clear from the differences between the IPCC reports in 2001 and 2007. Suddenly, the projected sea level rise goes from 21 feet to 21 inches (i.r, off by one order of magnitude). The "dangers" of climate change are clearly not all that terrible. How can you tell? Well.. 1) Count how many of you worry about AGW, but own SUV's. You are ****ing hypocrites. Sell your SUV, or shut the **** up. 2) All the people that own ANY auto, but live in an area with public transportation, and complain about AGW. Sell your car and take the bus, or shut the **** up. 3) All of you old senior citizen assholes who crank the thermostat up to 85 degrees in the winter, because you feel "freezing", and worry about AGW. Either turn down the heat to 68 (still plenty warm), or shut the **** up. 4) All of you lazy ass mother****ers who drive an automatic transmision, because you are too ****ing stupid and uncoordinated to drive a stick. At least buy a car with a manual transmission, or shut the **** up. 5) All of you lead foot *******s who, like Sammy Hagar, "can't drive 55". During WWII, the speed limit was THIRTY-FIVE (35). That was before the "fate of the planet" has hanging in the balance because of AGW. Either slow down, or shut the **** up. 6) All of you "cool" dudes with Hummers, and other cars that get 10 miles per gallon. "Environmental" whiners always want "Conservation" and higher CAFE standards (At least 35 mpg). How many of you AGW hypocrites have cars that don't even get 30 mpg. Either get a fuel- efficient car, or shut the **** up. 7) All you *******s who insist on "renewable" energy, yet bitch when someone puts a windfarm somewhere near your multi-million dollar compound (To whom am I referring, Ted?). Either let them build, or shut the **** up. (or take a drive off a bridge.....) 8) To all the saints of AGW, who pump more CO2 into the air than the average African country, but are quick to sign up for celebrity concerts. Or those who pay a "Fine" for CO2 emissions to a company that they own themselves. Just shut the **** up. You'll know that AGW is a REAL threat to mankind when the unions are willing to kill off THEIR jobs, or the left-wing politicians sell THEIR houses, and all the "Soccer moms" sell their "safe" SUV's and buy 40 mpg imports with manual transmissions. Until then, maybe all those who worry the most about AGW could reduce their OWN CO2 emission, perhaps by not breathing :-) Let the flames begin..... ("Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.") |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:31:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , h (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will remain temperate. Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down, Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html 'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say something you like and ignore others who say things you don't. The data suggests they might be right, which is a good thing. Dave |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:31:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , h (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will remain temperate. Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down, Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html 'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say something you like and ignore others who say things you don't. It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously believed. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Jul 30, 9:14 pm, 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? 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. Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile? What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too wet, or too dry? Again, why experiment with our only planet? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Jul 30, 11:35 pm, "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
"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. False. We know the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels, and analysis has ruled out other possible causes. 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. Do you think science hasn't looked into these? Geez, man, do some reading! 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. Yeah, you and Rush. Geez, talk it to a damn talk conference; you are scientifically illiterate. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down, Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html 'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say something you like and ignore others who say things you don't. It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously believed. Not to be argumentative, but no, you didn't. You pointed to a study (and correctly summarized yourself) showing that the *Gulf Stream* doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously believed. But the Gulf Stream is not the thermohaline circulation, and was not under discussion. I pointed this out in my previous reply, but it's probable that this didn't reach you before you typed the above. Best, - Joe -- "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/ |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:31:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , h (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will remain temperate. Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down, Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html 'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say something you like and ignore others who say things you don't. It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously believed. Yes, that's what the study says. That's not quite the same thing as saying that its a fact. You, of all people, should know that. Dave |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:01:48 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down, Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html 'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say something you like and ignore others who say things you don't. It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously believed. Not to be argumentative, but no, you didn't. You pointed to a study (and correctly summarized yourself) showing that the *Gulf Stream* doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously believed. But the Gulf Stream is not the thermohaline circulation, and was not under discussion. "Published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, this new data suggests that atmospheric circulation is more important to understanding climate variability than is the ocean ^^^^^ circulation." While they say Gulf Stream, their analysis extends to the total thermohaline circulation. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
In sci.physics Lloyd wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:14 pm, 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? 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. Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile? What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too wet, or too dry? The amount of rainfall in a particular location is primarily determined by things like mountains. The western side of Washington and Oregon is always going to be wetter than the eastern side unless the mountains go away. Again, why experiment with our only planet? What experiment? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Planetoid2001 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 10:33 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Astronomie | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 04:01 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Phineas T Puddleduck | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 03:23 PM |