| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
 |
|
'Mars and Pluto are warming too'
Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well.
Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming.
Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence,
but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.
The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if
the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to
look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully
back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate
change.
More at
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
KM
On May 31, 8:13 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Stan Marsh" <therocket...@softhome.net> wrote in message
With Mars and even Neptune showing signs of warming, yet both totally
lacking in SUVs, seems like at least part of the explanation lies with the
most common factor, which would be the Sun.
. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 4, 1:49 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180891339.265189.315000@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect.
I would prefer a sound theoretical basis for predicting the future.
That doesn't seem to be necessary for the global warming True Believers.
This would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years.
I disagree. Gathering data on climate change from periods of time
when conditions on the earth were much different from today is
useful,
but not so useful and one cannot so without it.
How can youcalibratethe models without data?
|
You cannot.
Nor can you calibrate a model with data from outside the
range of applicability of the model.
We have good data going back for about a century and
fair data for a century before that. Farther back, conditions
become considerably less certain, and what is known
indicates that there were pretty different.
....
| Quote: |
I think we should do a lot of things because we can and because they are
good ideas. I think we should reduce CO2 emissions- by we, I mean *the
entire planet, including the developing nations*, not merely the United
States- or find some way to use them, not because of global warming, but any
waste is inefficient. It's time to build more nuclear plants, *as well as*
increase the use of wind (even if it's in sight of Ted Kennedy's patio) and
solar *as well as* put more oil wells off the coast of Florida. We need to
find ways to make vehicles more fuel efficient *without* making them less
safe by reducing their weight. We need to build desalinisation plants *as
well as* develop more efficient plumbing and better ways of processing
waste. We need to greatly increase recycling, even if it costs us a bit
more-if we already paid to get stuff out of the ground or to make stuff, it
doesn't make sense to throw it away if we can use it again in a new way. We
also need to build transmissions lines and pipelines to make better use of
what we have so we don't have to build more plants simply because we can't
get what we have to where we want it- that is a lot of the problem
California has. Mostly, we need to find a way to show that "green"- *real*
"green", not simply "fashionable green"- is commercially viable. We need to
do these things, not because of global warming or other environmental
reasons, but because they are good ideas and the way we do a lot of things
now are wasteful and, damnit, where it's practical to make something more
efficient, we *ought* to do it- even if it *doesn't* fix global warming.
What do you infer from that?
|
You've been thinking.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 4, 2:22 pm, "Jim Oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Fred, you jump to place silly notions into the mouths and minds of people
who disagree with you. It is a very bad gimmick that will make you feel
omniscient
but make you look and sound like an ass.
Example -- assuming that postulations of solar impact on planetary climate
depend on and only on variations in the 'solar constant'.
You did make that asssumption, but it was a half-assumption... it only
showed your lack of imagination and knowledge.
|
Quite a few writers have pointed to the Martian warming and
written that it can _only_ be due to increased insolation. I don't
know if the remarks you criticized referred to a writer who
actually said that or not, as you quoted no text in your
article.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On May 31, 5:20 pm, "Stan Marsh" <therocket...@softhome.net> wrote:
If you're a good little Zionist or merely an Atheist puppet/minion on
their behalf, GW isn't real, nor even if it were, it certainly
wouldn't be a problem for the rich and powerful that are only going to
get richer and more powerful.
Who is dying in the Religious Wars? (besides countless innocent folks,
I'd say the truth of our past, present and future is what's dying)
What's the problem with certain faith-based groups, as having made
their fair share of mistakes?
Just look at all the mistakes our born again Christian as resident
LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has made.
How about the Roman Catholic mistake of having exterminated all of
those nice Cathars?
How about appreciating the full extent of the ongoing mistakes of our
mutually perpetrated Cold War(s).
What parts of history are these naysay folks (Zionist Third Reich in
denial) intending to exclude this time around?
Are these folks saying that at the time of Hitler, all Jews were
actually dumb and dumber?
Are Muslims at fault for all the wars and of otherwise having excluded
the truth?
Is their Koran/Qur'an yet another holy grail book of scripted hatred
and lies?
What's all that racist about sharing the whole truth and nothing but
the truth?
Isn't the excluding of truth being the most racist form of bigotry and
arrogance?
Are you folks being another anti-truth bigot, or just another Third
Reich minion?
Does not the law of gravity and of orbital mechanics play any part of
our purely terrestrial Zionist (Earth only) creation crapolla?
How about our considering those 1e100 photons per atom (1e82e100
photons)?
How about a little anti-matter per black hole; got any problem with
that?
What's wrong with little old Mars as having been a fresh water planet?
What's wrong with the planet Mars being a little older than Earth?
What's wrong with the planet Venus being much less old than Earth?
What's wrong with there having been other intelligent life existing/
coexisting on Venus?
What's wrong with an icy proto-moon that's still salty, as having
impacted Earth, as of the last ice age this planet will ever see?
What's wrong with the relocating of our moon out to Earth's L1?
What's wrong with the LSE-CM/ISS (@256e6 tonnes + tethers)?
What's wrong with the Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thruster?
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181323708.196880.85710@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 4, 1:49 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
How can youcalibratethe models without data?
You cannot.
|
Hmmm.
| Quote: |
Nor can you calibrate a model with data from outside the
range of applicability of the model.
|
And how do you know the the applicability of the model is valid? That is,
how do you know the design of the model isn't being driven by the available
data?
| Quote: |
We have good data going back for about a century and
fair data for a century before that. Farther back, conditions
become considerably less certain, and what is known
indicates that there were pretty different.
|
Just as important is the quality of the data. For example, what happened to
a lot of the monitoring stations, particularly those in cold areas, that
were paid for by the Soviet Union? They shut down, of course. I've seen a
nice graph recently that shows a correlation between increasing global
temperatures and the *decreasing* number of monitoring stations. For those
On A Mission to promote global warming hysteria, a simple average of the
temperatures taken from all the stations would show an increase in average
temperature. While the data is valid, of course, the conclusion would not
be, because of the inherent bias of the data. To get good data would require
money and time, and the True Believers don't want to spend either because
they already Know The Truth and don't need any evidence.
Also, while obviously if you go back in geological time, climate would be
substantially different. We don't need data from the time of the first
anaerobic bacteria to make valid conclusions for today's climate. But the
last few thousand years? The climate can't be all that different. In order
to determine change, you need to set a baseline. I can show that the Earth
is currently *cooling*, if I choose the right base year. In fact, a few
decades ago the True Believers were trying to scare us about the coming *ice
age*, due in part to excess carbon dioxide emissions.
| Quote: |
What do you infer from that?
You've been thinking.
|
All along. You only just now paid attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 8, 10:31 am, fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 4, 2:22 pm, "Jim Oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Fred, you jump to place silly notions into the mouths and minds of people
who disagree with you. It is a very bad gimmick that will make you feel
omniscient
but make you look and sound like an ass.
Example -- assuming that postulations of solar impact on planetary climate
depend on and only on variations in the 'solar constant'.
You did make that asssumption, but it was a half-assumption... it only
showed your lack of imagination and knowledge.
Quite a few writers have pointed to the Martian warming and
written that it can _only_ be due to increased insolation. I don't
know if the remarks you criticized referred to a writer who
actually said that or not, as you quoted no text in your
article.
--
FF
|
I see you've attracted the usual Zionist rusemasters of GW denial.
BTW; Earth is 98.5% fluid, and it has also got that extremely massive
and nearby mascon of a somewhat salty moon in orbit, as of the very
last ice age this orb of ours will ever see.
In addition to all of human's soot (aka global dimming), don't you
think the regular old laws of physics apply?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_KB8i.8$h44.572860@news.sisna.com...
| Quote: |
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect. This
would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years. He *does not* have that data. *There isn't sufficient data to draw
the conclusion that humans are responsible*. We don't know enough about
the
planet to draw any such conclusion. We've only been collecting reliable
data
on a global basis for around 200 years.
|
So you're claiming the six billion tons a year of carbon dioxide the US
(alone)
pumps into the atmosphere isn't a primary cause of changing global temps?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_8.html
Is that what you're saying? Please provide the data that backs up
your opinion that such massive amounts of greenhouse gasses
can be absorbed without change. The trends are pretty clear
on this subject. For instance...
From the US govt.
"Total primary energy consumption, including energy for electricity
generation, grows by 1.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2030
in the reference case (Figure 34). Fossil fuels account for 87 percent
of the growth. The increase in coal use occurs mostly in the
electric power sector, where strong growth in electricity demand
and favorable economics under current environmental policies
prompt coal-fired capacity additions. About 61 percent of the
projected increase in coal consumption occurs after 2020, when
higher natural gas prices make coal the fuel of choice for
most new power plants."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/demand.html
Coal produces TWICE the amount of greenhouse
gasses as oil, six times the amount of carbon monoxide
and three time the amount of sulfur dioxide as oil.
And in China lives 1.3 billion people with an economy growing
at almost 10% a year. Guess what fuel source they'll be
using to supply their astonishing growth?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Coal.html
| Quote: |
Hence, the reasonable, rational, scientific person would not rush into
changing things.
|
You gotta be kidding? Just how big a hole do you have
your head buried in?
Jonathan
s
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On May 31, 5:20 pm, "Stan Marsh" <therocket...@softhome.net> wrote:
Drugs are just a small part of the internal mindset problems within
our badly failing NASA.
You folks obviously don't know what a Zionist mindset is.
Do you folks have some other idea as to why there's so much topic/
author stalking, bashings and as much applied banishment as possible?
Here's an honest clue; it's not coming from Muslims or most other
honest faith-based groups.
Even the hard core Catholics are not nearly as anti-ETI or otherwise
opposed to the investments on behalf of discovering other than
terrestrial life, as are the Zionist which oppose damn near everything
under the sun which orbits their flat Earth.
Certain folks just like to get their way, even if they have to
continually lie, join forces as partners in crimes against humanity,
or having to put their own kind on a stick without a stitch of
remorse.
The fence jumping Atheist (aka Zion minions) are actually the official
rusemasters of Usenet, as well as being as much media, textbook
publication and of mainstream news and entertainment media domination
as possible.
There are few that can afford to opposed this faith-based infomercial
spewing gauntlet, and fewer yet of those willing to speak of the truth
as based upon the regular laws of physics and of the best available
science. Deductive interpretations of anything is forbidden by those
imposing their Zion mindset, whereas instead fear of personal trauma
and of receiving the most aggressive forms of Zion spermware/fuckware
gets sent to your email and otherwise directly to your computer.
BTW how many (all inclusive) photons are within this universe?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 10, 4:08 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181323708.196880.85710@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 4, 1:49 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How can youcalibratethe models without data?
You cannot.
Hmmm.
Nor can you calibrate a model with data from outside the
range of applicability of the model.
And how do you know the the applicability of the model is valid? That is,
how do you know the design of the model isn't being driven by the available
data?
|
You never know that until you begin testing predictions for
regions with conditions appropriate to the model but which
are not in the data set--the future, for example.
| Quote: |
We have good data going back for about a century and
fair data for a century before that. Farther back, conditions
become considerably less certain, and what is known
indicates that there were pretty different.
Just as important is the quality of the data. For example, what happened to
a lot of the monitoring stations, particularly those in cold areas, that
were paid for by the Soviet Union? They shut down, of course. I've seen a
nice graph recently that shows a correlation between increasing global
temperatures and the *decreasing* number of monitoring stations.
|
One can also show a correlation between global temperature
the frequency of UseNet flame wars. If any data have a secular
trend then any other dataset which also has a secular trend
will be positively or negatively correlated.
As I am sure you know, correlation does not imply causality,
which gets back to the point I made about having a theoretical
basis.
As you noted, true believers need no underlying theory,
regardless of what they believe.
| Quote: |
For those
On A Mission to promote global warming hysteria, a simple average of the
temperatures taken from all the stations would show an increase in average
temperature.
|
It shows the same thing for everyone. People would interpret it
differently.
| Quote: |
While the data is valid, of course, the conclusion would not
be, because of the inherent bias of the data. To get good data would require
money and time, and the True Believers don't want to spend either because
they already Know The Truth and don't need any evidence.
|
It would be a neat trick to go back and 'create' data for a station
that had ceased taking it, I suppose a 'true Believer' could find
a way. The average climatologist, I think, weights the data by
geographical area, not doing a 'simple' average.
Regardless, I do not personally think that short-term atmospheric
temperatures are particularly persuasive. Energy is stored in
other ways, ocean temperature and ice. Trends in ocean
temperature, acidification, and ice inventory are much more
persuasive to me.
| Quote: |
Also, while obviously if you go back in geological time, climate would be
substantially different. We don't need data from the time of the first
anaerobic bacteria to make valid conclusions for today's climate. But the
last few thousand years? The climate can't be all that different. In order
to determine change, you need to set a baseline. I can show that the Earth
is currently *cooling*, if I choose the right base year.
In fact, a few
decades ago the True Believers were trying to scare us about the coming *ice
age*, due in part to excess carbon dioxide emissions.
|
That is simply not true. It was the media who hyped the
'coming ice age', probably because most editors had heard
of ice ages before, but had never heard of the greenhouse
effect.
If you review the proceedings from the climate conferences of the
time, you'll see a different picture.
| Quote: |
What do you infer from that?
You've been thinking.
All along. You only just now paid attention.
|
I've only recently run across you. I've
been thinking about global warming since
the Mauna Loa data were published in
the1970s.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 10, 6:22 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Up yours.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 10, 8:46 am, fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 10, 6:22 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Up yours.
--
FF
|
Is that another Zionist "Up yours"?
Your LLPOF president should have been impeached as of years ago, and
of his face shooting Dick Cheney sould be handed over to the Al Qaeda.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:50 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181490307.783235.93930@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Just as important is the quality of the data. For example, what happened
to
a lot of the monitoring stations, particularly those in cold areas, that
were paid for by the Soviet Union? They shut down, of course. I've seen a
nice graph recently that shows a correlation between increasing global
temperatures and the *decreasing* number of monitoring stations.
As I am sure you know, correlation does not imply causality,
which gets back to the point I made about having a theoretical
basis.
|
In this case, it can affect the conclusion, if the distribution of
temperature monitoring stations changed. If you suddenly lose a lot of cold
measurements because the equipment is turned off, then the average
temperature measured will of course go up, even if global temperatures are
in fact decreasing.
| Quote: |
Regardless, I do not personally think that short-term atmospheric
temperatures are particularly persuasive. Energy is stored in
other ways, ocean temperature and ice. Trends in ocean
temperature, acidification, and ice inventory are much more
persuasive to me.
|
Perhaps, but try to discuss it on TV.
| Quote: |
In fact, a few
decades ago the True Believers were trying to scare us about the coming
*ice
age*, due in part to excess carbon dioxide emissions.
That is simply not true. It was the media who hyped the
'coming ice age', probably because most editors had heard
of ice ages before, but had never heard of the greenhouse
effect.
|
Carl Sagan had, and didn't let that stop him from bringing on the warnings
about global cooling.
| Quote: |
What do you infer from that?
You've been thinking.
All along. You only just now paid attention.
I've only recently run across you. I've
been thinking about global warming since
the Mauna Loa data were published in
the1970s.
|
Then you must have been asleep when the *global cooling due to Mt. Pinatubo*
was discussed. For some reason, Mt. St. Helens exploding didn't sound an
alarm either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
There appears to have been an editing error that caused some of
the quoted text to be removed without substitution of an indicator
such as an ellipsis '...'. I've tried to fix that below.
On Jun 10, 6:50 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181490307.783235.93930@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Just as important is the quality of the data. For example, what happened
to
a lot of the monitoring stations, particularly those in cold areas, that
were paid for by the Soviet Union? They shut down, of course. I've seen a
nice graph recently that shows a correlation between increasing global
temperatures and the *decreasing* number of monitoring stations.
As I am sure you know, correlation does not imply causality,
which gets back to the point I made about having a theoretical
basis.
It would be a neat trick to go back and 'create' data for a station
that had ceased taking it, I suppose a 'true Believer' could find
a way. The average climatologist, I think, weights the data by
geographical area, not doing a 'simple' average.
The average climatologist, I think, weights the data by
geographical area, not doing a 'simple' average.
In this case, it can affect the conclusion, if the distribution of
temperature monitoring stations changed. If you suddenly lose a lot of cold
measurements because the equipment is turned off, then the average
temperature measured will of course go up, even if global temperatures are
in fact decreasing.
|
Indeed, how the data are weighted is crucial.
| Quote: |
Regardless, I do not personally think that short-term atmospheric
temperatures are particularly persuasive. Energy is stored in
other ways, ocean temperature and ice. Trends in ocean
temperature, acidification, and ice inventory are much more
persuasive to me.
Perhaps, but try to discuss it on TV.
|
Thanks for the invite, when do we shoot?
| Quote: |
In fact, a few
decades ago the True Believers were trying to scare us about the coming
*ice
age*, due in part to excess carbon dioxide emissions.
That is simply not true. It was the media who hyped the
'coming ice age', probably because most editors had heard
of ice ages before, but had never heard of the greenhouse
effect.
Carl Sagan had, and didn't let that stop him from
bringing on the warnings about global cooling.
|
I don't remember him bringing on any such warnings.
Regardless, he is not a climatologists.
| Quote: |
What do you infer from that?
You've been thinking.
All along. You only just now paid attention.
I've only recently run across you. I've
been thinking about global warming since
the Mauna Loa data were published in
the1970s.
Then you must have been asleep when the *global cooling due to Mt. Pinatubo*
was discussed. For some reason, Mt. St. Helens exploding didn't sound an
alarm either way.
|
No, I realized that it was a short-term effect, just like
all other well-documented global cooling from major
volcanic eruptions. The longest period of volcanic-induced
global cooling on record lasted less than a decade.
That doesn't stop true believers from falsely claiming that
volcanoes cause global warming by releasing more carbon
dioxide than humans do. But I digress.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181530754.649188.284250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
There appears to have been an editing error
|
No, just removal of irrelevant material.
| Quote: |
Perhaps, but try to discuss it on TV.
Thanks for the invite, when do we shoot?
|
You sound like the Vice President.
Why do they call them *vice* presidents, when it seems to be the presidents
that have the vices?
| Quote: |
Carl Sagan had, and didn't let that stop him from
bringing on the warnings about global cooling.
I don't remember him bringing on any such warnings.
Regardless, he is not a climatologists.
|
Many of the experts touted as experts on the effects of global warming are
not. Quite often, folks who may indeed be qualified to discuss the possible
effects of potential global warming *on their particular field of expertise*
are treated as being experts on global warming and climate change. For
example, a biologist might very well be qualified to discuss the effects of
climate change on, say, spotted owls, but in discussing the effects of
*possible* change, this biologist will often be treated as an expert on
climate change (even if that isn't the intent of the biologist). Discussing
*potential* ill effects on an owl is treated in the media and by the True
Believers as the prediction of a climate expert. Today's media doesn't have
the time to properly clarify this, even if it wanted to do so, which it
doesn't, because dirty laundry and doom'n'gloom bring better ratings.
| Quote: |
No, I realized that it was a short-term effect, just like
all other well-documented global cooling from major
volcanic eruptions. The longest period of volcanic-induced
global cooling on record lasted less than a decade.
That doesn't stop true believers from falsely claiming that
volcanoes cause global warming by releasing more carbon
dioxide than humans do. But I digress.
|
What's worse, carbon dioxide isn't even the most serious problem- it just
has a better publicist. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to deduce our output,
it just means we shouldn't get so worried about CO2 that we forget about
more serious issues.
For one thing, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas.
/logic off
Humans generate methane by eathing beans. Mexican food often contains a
great deal of beans. Therefore, if we were to bomb Mexico, we could both
eliminate a significant man-made source of methane *and* reduce the illegal
immigration flow.
/logic on |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:53:14 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" <dinehnmNOSPAM@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
For one thing, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas.
/logic off
Humans generate methane by eathing beans. Mexican food often contains a
great deal of beans. Therefore, if we were to bomb Mexico, we could both
eliminate a significant man-made source of methane *and* reduce the illegal
immigration flow.
/logic on
|
No, we'll just starve them to death by using all the corn they need
for tortillas to make ethanol instead.
Except maybe it will just increase the pressure for them to come
north.
Hey, now I know why Bush is so big on ethanol... ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
215 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
