The Norfolk Island Experiment by canttakesky

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTS

> IF < CO2 absorbs heat in proportion to its concentration > AND IF < its concentration has gone up > THEN < more heat is being absorbed. Since both IF statements are true, the THEN statement must be true.

In other words, CO2 IS having a greenhouse effect. In fact, it is having a greenhouse effect in exact ratio to its concentration. In 1960 the CO2 concentration was about 315 ppm. Today it has gone up to about 385 ppm. That is a rise of 22%. Consequently, 22% more heat is being absorbed by CO2 now than in 1960. That is indisputable.

Perhaps you could define your issue more precisely.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 10:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Under certain conditions, yes. Better to say, CO2 CAN BE a greenhouse gas.

No. Carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse can. The definition of greenhouse gas is one which transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared. Carbon dioxide does both. Therefore, it IS a greenhouse gas.

Quote:
Even this has been debated. As Mal4Prez would point out, there are those who think it has increased significantly since agriculture.

It has increased since industrialization. That is incontrovertible, as shown by actual atmospheric measurements within historic times. Anyone who says that is debatable is running headlong into the wall of repeated observation. Now, it may be true that the concentration of CO2 has gone up since BEFORE industrialization, but that is not what I said.

Quote:
The point is, there IS a debate, based on how one measures and defines the "amount of carbon dioxide."

Carbon dioxide is defined as CO2. Measurement is actual measurement of atmospheric gases. What's the problem?

Quote:
Oversimplification. Conditions for (1) have to be met. Evidence for (2) has to be stronger. Then there is the question of significance. CO2 is 0.039% of the atmosphere. If it increased from 0.039% to 0.042%, will that make a significant increase in global temperatures?

We use the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide as a basis of quantitative measurement. How can the evidence possibly need to be stronger? X amount of carbon dioxide yields Y increase in temperature of the gases which contain it. I refer you to Kiki's discussion of % increase. Anyone who chooses to debate this is ignorant, kidding themselves, or lying.

Quote:
Parts of the world are warming significantly. Other parts, not so much. The methodologies used in climate modeling for summarizing warming on a global scale are also debated.

But nobody is debating THAT the earth is warming on the average. As you yourself said: some parts are warming, other parts "not so much" (but not getting cooler either) so ON AVERAGE the earth is warming.

Quote:
I study the evidence

No. You cherry-pick facts which line up with your world view, just like Rappy, sorry to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
> IF < CO2 absorbs heat in proportion to its concentration > AND IF < its concentration has gone up > THEN < more heat is being absorbed. Since both IF statements are true, the THEN statement must be true.

In other words, CO2 IS having a greenhouse effect. In fact, it is having a greenhouse effect in exact ratio to its concentration. In 1960 the CO2 concentration was about 315 ppm. Today it has gone up to about 385 ppm. That is a rise of 22%. Consequently, 22% more heat is being absorbed by CO2 now than in 1960. That is indisputable.

I think there must be some misunderstanding somewhere. I am not disputing this.

My point merely was to say, as in everything else, certain conditions must be met for certain definitions to be true. THAT is indisputable as well.

It happens that those conditions ARE met on earth right now, so, we have no real argument here.

I apologize for bringing up the issue of conditions. I didn't realize it would become so distracting.

Quote:
Perhaps you could define your issue more precisely.

My issue is simply this: GW is debatable.

If carbon dioxide concentration rises from 0.0315% to 0.0385% over 50 years, is it a statistically significant rise? And does this 22% more heat from CO2 make a significant difference in the global annual average surface temperature?

Different experts answer differently. So there is a debate.

If someone put a capsule into your food that had 99.9615% arsenic, and 0.0385% cyanide, which poison would you worry about more, cyanide or arsenic? Does the cyanide even matter? Would it make a significant contribution to your death? I think it is a legitimate question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:12 AM

kiki

Not so, deforestation has been going on for a long time. I have disputed none of those facts, but this does not account for the cause.

We don't need to guess: We have a long historic record, and this has happened many times in earth's history, each time coinciding with a loss of forest cover for the earth.

But anyone can do the math.

I'm as interested in solving the problem as anyone, but solving the problem does require knowing what the problem is.

Humanity's main output of co2 lately is probably forest fires, but still I think an increase in co2 production would lead to a greener Earth. In fact, anyone can easily prove that this is so. This is clearly not what we see.

I'm not shooting in the dark here

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:25 AM

Also:

A causes B also does not prove that A causes X amount of B, and in this case, I can assure you that it does not.

The co2 concentration went up form 340ppm to 370ppm over the last century

Global mean temp went up about 3 degrees.

A rise of 30ppm of co2 will definitely NOT cause this effect. We know this because we have at least 550 million years of accurate data on both global mean temp and atmospheric co2 levels.

Atmospheric co2 is consumed by an increase in vegetation consumption which causes is a buffer factor which is the reason why we see virtually no rise in global temp associated with most rises in co2 until it reaches a threshold way above current levels.

If global mean co2 hit 3000ppm we would have a problem. But if it goes to 600ppm or 700ppm that in and of *itself* would not cause a problem.

However, as I've tried to point out, there are other factors at work here.

The reduction of global vegetation effectively reduces that buffer, but more importantly for the short term effects, it wreaks havoc on convection and wind cycles.

Again, I'm really far more concerned with the environmental aspects of *extracting* fossil fuels. I would rate this second in my environmental concerns.

First would be the deforestation and desertification overall environmental degradation which is really causing this problem and so many more.

Third in that list would be the imposition of a global carbon tax by the very people who own the energy industry that the left is by proxy attacking here, and the end result of that will be a permanent international taxation structure which will ultimately feed an INCREASE in corporate rule of the planet, not a DECREASE.

I'm glad that people are so passionate about the issue, but please, use your heads.

I hope everyone remembers Al Gore's woefully scientifically inaccurate film which I hope we can all agree did more harm to the cause than good. We need informed and accurate data in well constructed models in order to know what is going on.

A can cause B does not mean that when you see B is is being caused by A esp. when you have not yet determined either the amount to which A causes B and more importantly that A is the only possible cause of B.

At any rate our friends in the oil industry have already solved the co2 output problem: Algae farm biofuels. Unfortunately this is not our only problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Carbon dioxide is defined as CO2. Measurement is actual measurement of atmospheric gases. What's the problem?

Um, scientific measurement is more complicated than that. Even within the same instrument, there are norms and errors to be taken into account. Globally, there are different methods/definitions to measure CO2 (ice core proxies vs physical methods vs. chemical methods), different instruments, different places, different elevations, different times etc. Then somehow, someone has to use a judgment call on how to average all that data from different sources into one summary figure. There is room for debate here.

For example, the Keeling Curve is based on measurements from on top of an active volcano. They have to subtract the volcanic contribution. They have to estimate that amount. What if they are wrong or the data used for their estimate is incomplete? There is room for debate, which in science, means room for improvement.

Science is self-correcting that way. In fact, there MUST be debate for science to work properly.

Quote:
But nobody is debating THAT the earth is warming on the average.

But people ARE debating it. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=d71dfa89-384c-4ede-a759-55fb
7ffdcfc2

Now you can dismiss their arguments, but there IS a debate.

Quote:
As you yourself said: some parts are warming, other parts "not so much" (but not getting cooler either) so ON AVERAGE the earth is warming.

Um, "not so much" was a figurative allusion to our favorite TV show--not to be taken literally. It wasn't not meant to say parts of the planet are not getting cooler. They are, in different years.

For example, here:

I felt like I needed to clarify that.

As for the rest, I'll let it stand. I think I've made my point that the debate exists.

Edited to add:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conte
ntRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Haven't checked out the people they quoted, but I think the gist of it is, there are a lot of people debating this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Whoa whoa whoa..

Can we, like, stop with the picking of nits and just stick to the general principle of "let's not trash our living space" ?

Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?

And what's this algae farm thing, I wanna know more about that one!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?

I think that is one thing everyone in this thread does agree on. :)

Now if anyone wants to talk about decreasing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead levels--then we can debate where I would draw the line in public interests vs. personal liberty.

Re algae fuel, here's some basic info on it for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

But my hubby (who has colleagues researching this) says it requires a huge amount of surface area, too much to make it very practical, unfortunately. Dunno much about it, but that's what he says.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 1:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"certain conditions must be met for certain definitions to be true"

CO2 absorbs heat and there is more CO2 absorbing more heat, therefore, it is warming up the earth. Those are facts which aren't about to change. What part do you have a problem with? WHAT conditions, WHICH definitions can you point to that will change that?

"is it a statistically significant rise?" Yes - it is higher than it's been in nearly 800,000 years by all measurements, and higher than in the last 20 million years by some.

"And does this 22% more heat from CO2 make a significant difference in the global annual average surface temperature?" You misunderstand the physical concept. Different substances absorb at different wavelengths, effectively closing off heat radiating back into space at those wavelengths. The CO2 wavelength was one fairly open window in a bunch of closed ones. By increasing the CO2 concentration, we are closing one of the few windows that are open. If you are in a stifling house and you close your one open window even a little, the house will invariably get hotter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Oh BTW, you never answered my question, Magon. Would you support an involuntary, mandatory expansion of the Norfolk program over all of Australia?

Sorry. Yes, if it was found to be effective. I agree a lot with what Mal4prez has been saying. So pretty much if you want my view on things, read his posts. I'd just be reiterating it, and probably not as eloquently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?

I think that is one thing everyone in this thread does agree on. :)

Now if anyone wants to talk about decreasing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead levels--then we can debate where I would draw the line in public interests vs. personal liberty.

Re algae fuel, here's some basic info on it for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

But my hubby (who has colleagues researching this) says it requires a huge amount of surface area, too much to make it very practical, unfortunately. Dunno much about it, but that's what he says.

If you read a bit more about the Norfolk Island experient, you'll see that it is more than just buying carbon units, but trying to create a more sustainable local economy for that island. You and Dreamtrove have been critical of the rights of the inhabitents to do what they please, as they please. I find this one of the more puzzling aspects to the mindset of many Americans, that the idea of being able to live as one chooses only applies to Americans, and everyone else must choose to embrace your ideas on how things should be done. Doesn't that ever strike you as kind of weird?

The original article is by Andrew Bolt who is a right winged opinionist who cherry picks information to support his own agenda of disputing climate change and making alarmist observations on how the commies are basically out to get us all, often without much basis in the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You and Dreamtrove have been critical of the rights of the inhabitents to do what they please, as they please.

Excuse me. I have not been critical of them in the least. I DARE you to produce a single quotation from me in this thread where I was critical of the Norfolk Islanders for participating in this experiment.

-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 3:10 PM

In your first thread, you said it sounded like Miranda. Apart from being a tad alarmist, it doesn't exactly endorse their decision making in choosing to go along with this experiment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 3:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"For example, the Keeling Curve is based on measurements from on top of an active volcano. They have to subtract the volcanic contribution. They have to estimate that amount. What if they are wrong or the data used for their estimate is incomplete? There is room for debate, which in science, means room for improvement."

Oh, one more thing, CTS - Mauna Loa (where the Keeling curve is measured) is NOT a continuously active volcano as you erroneously imply. The last eruption was, I think, in 1972. In addition, the measurements are taken upwind on air coming in from the ocean, not on air coming from the volcano. Finally, other isolated places record the same CO2 increases.

Despite your claim, there really is NO room for debate. Global CO2 IS rising.

I don't know where you get your arguments, but you need to stop accepting and propagating falsehoods simply on the basis that you agree with them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Recently in Britain the Tories introduced primary voting, so that the people could pick their party's candidate before voting for them. This is fairly large part of how they won.

Labour opposed the move because there was a strong resistance from its socialist caucus, whose leader said in an interview, "But if we went to a primary system where the voters chose the candidates, no socialist would ever win."

I don't have the transcript because I just told this by a british friend over the phone who had just listened to it.

You're probably right, it's a testing ground, and they probably are not testing the program, they are trying to prove to their fellow socialists that they can pull this off. So, they'd pick the community that would have the fewest problems with it.

Wow, seems everything is some kind of sinister socialist agenda as far as you are concerned.

Britain has experimented with some form of primary system, but it is not yet widespread, so I doubt that it had anything to do with the Tories winning power. I think the Tories won because people were sick of Labour after 13? odd years of government and the disaster of the Iraq war and the GFC. usually people need a change after awhile.

The British system (along with the Canadian and Australian system) are all Westminster Parliamentary Democracies, they vary widely from the American system. Originally they were designed for a two party system, but nearly every westminster style parliament has become 'hung', paritally due to the disillusionment of people with major parties and the emergence of minor parties who hold the balance of power. In Britain as here (Australia) there has been a lot of talk about electoral reform because of these changes and also because of some inequities in the the power that each vote holds.

some of the reforms have looked at primary voting, but you need to realise that the Westminster system is very different. We don't elect a leader (a Prime Minister) in a separate vote. we vote for local candidates who may or may not belong to a party and the party who wins the most candidates holds power, and their leader is the Prime Minister. In the recent elections, no clear party emerged and they had to form co-alitions with independants.

I can't see that holding primaries would advantage or disadvantage any of the parties. The issue is anyone can run for parliament...so long as they put down a minor deposit, so if you don't like your local candidates from either major parties, you can run someone you do like.

I think what really has emerged from all this close calls at election time is that people hold more complex views than right and left, which is where the old 2 party system aligns. They hold a mix of views about things like the environment, the economy, the function of government, social issues, religion etc which is kind of hard to cram into a rigid two party system based on outdated 20th Century ideology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Whoa whoa whoa..

Can we, like, stop with the picking of nits and just stick to the general principle of "let's not trash our living space" ?

Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?

And what's this algae farm thing, I wanna know more about that one!

-F

THANK YOU!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:19 PM

Kiki

I'm *very* familiar with the situation. You've dodged every question and piece of data I've put out there. I'm really losing interest in discussing it. I apologize for being irritable, I'm quite overstressed from work at the moment.

CTTS:

Your data is anecdotal. The global mean temp is rising, just not for the reasons that people are saying it is. What they don't realize is that this global warming scare is just like the H1N1 flu scare and the terrorist scare, it's a set up for really bad policy.

Magon,

Again, I apologize for my current mood, but do you *follow* politics, like, at all?

The Tories introduced the measure *before* they were elected, forcing the hand of Labour to take up the issue, and the labour socialists shot it down, openly stating what I just quoted them as saying.

This was not a conspiracy, it was not a theory, and it had nothing to do with the Tories taking power except in that, obviously, this helped the Tories win. But what really helped the Tories win was that Labour was so truly awful. It was as bad as G.W. Bush, it was basically identical, and the result of that was that the Lib Dems in their infinite wisdom threw their backing behind the Tories because Labour had become so neocon/neolib that it was the only "liberal" thing to do.

And hats off to them, by all means. If all liberals were like the LibDems I don't think I'd ever have a major argument with them. It's the lockstep following of idiocy which I find intensely irritating on both sides of the aisle.

Now... If we can get back to the *topic*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:45 PM

Algae farming.

I was in Iowa, and I was looking at all of these ethanol farms and refineries, advertising different methods to get more ethanol per acre.

Now, you know this is just my sort of problem, so it took me about five minutes. I thought through and came up with a number of crops which produce higher seed weight and oil per % of biomass, and more biomass per acre, and then I thought of ways you could radically upgrade it with fast growing trees or bamboo, and using various parasites like termites to break down the polysaccharides and after about five minutes of this it hit me:

Someone out there is going to figure this one out: Some life form produces far more oil at far more efficiency and it's going to be something really weird that we would never think of if we were thinking of it rationally, it'll be like jellyfish or something.

Well, as it turns out that person was a man working on the Human Genome project in La Jolla, which probably means Scripps, but not definitely. Anyway, the answer was Algae.

Algae, as a life form, operates at over 99% efficiency. It turns co2 into oil, and then, the oil, when burned, turns back into co2. It's a completely balanced system.

Also, it's extremely space efficient. If we took the land that we currently have devoted to ethanol production, and used it as algae farms, the United States would need no other form of energy.

Not only now, but for almost any foreseeable future. In fact, we would export energy. In fact, in ideal conditions, the estimates are that the US ethanol production could serve the entire world energy needs.

But it gets better. There's no reason to use viable farmland: An algae field can be built just about anywhere, and on any scale. Whether it's the middle of the desert in a closed system with water filtration, or on the rooftops of the buildings which are going to be consuming the oil. Ultimately, there would be no need to transport the oil at all. Gas stations could grow oil on site. Maybe eventually, cars could grow their own.

It's pure photosynthetic fuel.

Exxon/Mobile has poured $600 billion into the research, which dwarfs other private sector investment but is only a tiny fraction of what the US govt. has invested in corn ethanol, which last I read was over 80 billion. Exxon says that they are currently producing 30 times the yield per acre of corn ethanol's theoretical maximum, and that in ideal conditions, the algae fields would produce 400 times as much as the nearest competitor.

And thanks, I'm glad someone was interested in the science. Actually, a couple people here were on to this one before I was.

Now, of course, comes the political game. You know there are control freaks out there in the international finance and energy industries which simply do not *want* to have problems solved, especially in a way which can be so easily distributed, and they will oppose this, one way or another.

Now, a side note about good ideas. Good ideas can come from anywhere. The failure to realize this is the greatest failure of TPTB, who believe that only think tanks of the trusted and intellectually superior elite can come up with good ideas. This resulted in one of my favorite diplomacy FAILs of all time: When the us, in the person of Gates I think it was, told the Pakistanis that they could provide the logistical manpower to rid the country of terrorists and insurgents, and that we would send our experts to provide the solutions which the Pakistanis could execute... to which the Pakistani foreign minister replied "Actually, we have our own brains."

But yes, it works both ways.... remember when we were having a dispute about Merck's Gardisil vaccine and I said that it was poorly executed, but I had seen the Merck research team and the work they had done, and it was some of the best damn work I've seen done in the field. This is because Merck is made up of people. It's not really just a giant machine to control us with drugs. Sure the power structure is a problem, but real people have their own brains, and can come up with solutions.

Exxon is also made up of people, and those people are currently parallel testing every form and application of every process to every species of algae, and they will determine the maximum efficiency ways of doing this.

Then, whether or not the company decides to execute it well or at all is another matter, but in the information age, I'm increasingly confident that someone will.

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and you know I don't believe in things like justice and revenge, and I'm perfectly happy to forgive Exxon for its countless transgressions against the planet if it solves our energy process, but I am worries that the power structure will once more fuck it up...

Which leads me to this thought:

Perhaps all of this effort into changing the process and personnel of govt. is misguided. Maybe we've chosen the wrong target. Perhaps it's the leadership of companies like Exxon and Merck that we should be focused on instead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In your first thread, you said it sounded like Miranda. Apart from being a tad alarmist, it doesn't exactly endorse their decision making in choosing to go along with this experiment.

The project reminds me of Miranda, yes. It is an experiment in trying to make people "better" (esp the fat part).

But making less than flattering comments (or not endorsing) a PROJECT is not the same thing as criticizing its participants. Even if the inhabitants of Miranda had agreed to THEIR experiment, I would not have criticized them either. More power to them, I guess, if they have that much hope.

As to the point you made, I have NEVER criticized the RIGHT of the NI inhabitants to volunteer for this experiment.

-----
They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better...
-- Mal in Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:55 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I had nothing polite to say about this

It's strangely fascist. IMHO, the co2 scare is a scam. They're not killing them yet though. It's just misguided liberalism. It's an experiment to see if people get really annoyed and move.

or this

Recently in Britain the Tories introduced primary voting, so that the people could pick their party's candidate before voting for them. This is fairly large part of how they won. Labour opposed the move because there was a strong resistance from its socialist caucus, whose leader said in an interview, "But if we went to a primary system where the voters chose the candidates, no socialist would ever win." I don't have the transcript because I just told this by a british friend over the phone who had just listened to it. You're probably right, it's a testing ground, and they probably are not testing the program, they are trying to prove to their fellow socialists that they can pull this off. So, they'd pick the community that would have the fewest problems with it.

which were truly irrational rants that have no basis in reality.

Your very next post had a very little about CO2 and global warming per se and was again mostly a paranoid rant. The next had nothing about CO2 and global warming, same for the next post the next one and the next one after that. It was at that point that I pretty much stopped reading your posts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTTS:

Your data is anecdotal. The global mean temp is rising, just not for the reasons that people are saying it is.

I wasn't aware that I presented any data. I presented links to people who dispute the existence of global warming. Those links support my point that a debate exists.

It doesn't necessarily mean I support them. In fact, I have not presented my personal position on GW in this thread. It is interesting how everyone immediately jumps to conclusions simply because I say a debate exists.

For all I said here, I could be a GW proponent who simply believes the evidence standards need to be higher before legislation.

-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kiki

Magon,

Again, I apologize for my current mood, but do you *follow* politics, like, at all?

The Tories introduced the measure *before* they were elected, forcing the hand of Labour to take up the issue, and the labour socialists shot it down, openly stating what I just quoted them as saying.

This was not a conspiracy, it was not a theory, and it had nothing to do with the Tories taking power except in that, obviously, this helped the Tories win.

please show some data to demonstrate that primary voting was widely introduced in the UK to the point where it affected the outcome of the last election, because I haven't been able to find anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In your first thread, you said it sounded like Miranda. Apart from being a tad alarmist, it doesn't exactly endorse their decision making in choosing to go along with this experiment.

The project reminds me of Miranda, yes. It is an experiment in trying to make people "better" (esp the fat part).

But making less than flattering comments (or not endorsing) a PROJECT is not the same thing as criticizing its participants. Even if the inhabitants of Miranda had agreed to THEIR experiment, I would not have criticized them either. More power to them, I guess, if they have that much hope.

As to the point you made, I have NEVER criticized the RIGHT of the NI inhabitants to volunteer for this experiment.

-- Mal in Serenity

Except that Miranda was not implemented with the knowledge or willing participation of its inhabitents and was covered up both before and after, so your analogy is pretty flawed. If you want to compare Miranda, then I'd say that the secret experiments conducted by US military in the last half of the 20th Cent were a more applicable analogy http://www.whale.to/a/cantwell9.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
CO2 absorbs heat and there is more CO2 absorbing more heat, therefore, it is warming up the earth. Those are facts which aren't about to change. What part do you have a problem with? WHAT conditions, WHICH definitions can you point to that will change that?

I just put a drop of boiling water into the ocean. I can say I am warming up the ocean, because it is a fact that the ocean now has more heat than a minute ago. But I don't think that is what "warming up" means.

Even if I measured the temperature of the ocean, and it IS a teeny fraction of a degree higher, how do I know that isn't cause I read the thermometer wrong? How do I know something else didn't cause the temp rise at the same time? Correlation doesn't equal causation. Sure the coincidence is worth further investigation, but concluding causation is premature.

I already said that the conditions for CO2 to exert greenhouse effects is a non-issue. But since you press me, I will give you an example.

In logic-speak, ALL conclusions rest on certain premises. There are assumptions underlying ALL hypotheses. One assumption behind the theory of the greenhouse effect is the earth as a black body, where the earth emits radiation in a continuous bell curve across all frequencies. What if the earth should absorb and re-emit IR radiation unevenly? What if the earth should emit very little radiation in the absorption bands of CO2? Then CO2 would have almost nothing to absorb, n'est ce pas? So, one would have to assume there is radiation for CO2 to absorb in the first place, before it can exert a greenhouse effect.

I have no problems with the black body assumption itself, but I know critics who do. My intent was to point out there ARE assumptions involved. Not everyone even accepts there IS such a thing as a greenhouse effect--thankfully, I didn't bring THAT up.

Quote:
"is it a statistically significant rise?" Yes - it is higher than it's been in nearly 800,000 years by all measurements, and higher than in the last 20 million years by some.

YOU are sure the answer is yes, but others are not. You can dismiss those people as wrong, but it doesn't change that the debate exists.

Quote:
Different substances absorb at different wavelengths, effectively closing off heat radiating back into space at those wavelengths.

Those wavelengths for CO2 are at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns, and 15 microns. Water absorbs broadly across the spectrum, largely overlapping with CO2, with the exception of 4.3. Factor in that there is tons more water vapor molecules than CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

Here is a graph to illustrate:

Here is question on CO2 absorption bands with various answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070718162208AA2Tjim

Quote:
The CO2 wavelength was one fairly open window in a bunch of closed ones. By increasing the CO2 concentration, we are closing one of the few windows that are open. If you are in a stifling house and you close your one open window even a little, the house will invariably get hotter.

Except your CO2 window is a tiny slit the size of a toothpick amongst large mansion windows. Would closing one crack in the wall really warm the house that much? Maybe, maybe not. But the debate exists.

Again, the idea of significance.

Now GW proponents argue that the toothpick slit is significant because it allows the number of closed windows to grow. Maybe the mechanism for explaining this growth is valid. Or maybe it is a magic crack.

The fact remains people DO, and should be allowed to, debate whether that crack indeed has window-growing properties. You can take sides in the debate, but you can't say there is no debate.

-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
CTS: "For example, the Keeling Curve is based on measurements from on top of an active volcano. They have to subtract the volcanic contribution. They have to estimate that amount. What if they are wrong or the data used for their estimate is incomplete? There is room for debate, which in science, means room for improvement."

Oh, one more thing, CTS - Mauna Loa (where the Keeling curve is measured) is NOT a continuously active volcano as you erroneously imply.

Everything I said was factually correct. I did not imply anything. If YOU had inferred from my statements that Mauna Loa was continuously active, then YOUR inference was erroneous.

Quote:

The last eruption was, I think, in 1972. In addition, the measurements are taken upwind on air coming in from the ocean, not on air coming from the volcano.

Eruptions were in 1950, 1975, 1984. They estimate and correct for the volcanic contributions.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
"easy to remove them... with a mathematical filter." Or...
"Although the volcanically contaminated CO2 data are removed from the global averages, they are still scientifically useful."

Or here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcan
icco2.html
"A volcanic component can be ESTIMATED (emphasis mine) by taking the difference in concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions. "

Just to be clear, I think the corrections are probably fine. But that's an assumption. The assumption could be proven wrong as the science advances. So of course, there is room for debate.

Quote:
Finally, other isolated places record the same CO2 increases.

Redirect. This has nothing to do with the point I made, which was the process used to correct for volcanic CO2 contributions are subject to improvement and debate.

Quote:
I don't know where you get your arguments, but you need to stop accepting and propagating falsehoods simply on the basis that you agree with them.

LOL. But I don't necessarily agree with them! Talk about wrong assumptions....

My only point is: there is a legitimate debate. In other words, the debate exists, and both sides make some very good points. This is not a falsehood.

-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 7:30 PM

kiki

Feel free to reject my opinion. Did I mention that I was feeling irritable?

Magon

Quote:

United Kingdom. On August 4, 2009, Dr Sarah Wollaston was chosen by Open Primary as the Conservative Party candidate for Totnes, for the 2010 general election, the first time such a mechanism has been used to pick a prospective candidate for an election in the UK. This was after the current incumbent Anthony Steen decided to step down in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal. The Conservatives have plans to roll this out further and there are hopes other parties may nominate future candidates in this way.[11][12]

It was widely reported here in the US. Looks like they haven't yet taken it all the way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
kiki
Magon

Quote:

United Kingdom. On August 4, 2009, Dr Sarah Wollaston was chosen by Open Primary as the Conservative Party candidate for Totnes, for the 2010 general election, the first time such a mechanism has been used to pick a prospective candidate for an election in the UK. This was after the current incumbent Anthony Steen decided to step down in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal. The Conservatives have plans to roll this out further and there are hopes other parties may nominate future candidates in this way.[11][12]

It was widely reported here in the US. Looks like they haven't yet taken it all the way.

As I said in my earlier post, and I quote..."Britain has experimented with some form of primary system, but it is not yet widespread, so I doubt that it had anything to do with the Tories winning power."

Care to elaborate on the widespread reforms which helped topple Labour that you mentioned earlier...or don't you follow the news either

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except that Miranda was not implemented with the knowledge or willing participation of its inhabitents and was covered up both before and after, so your analogy is pretty flawed.

I don't mind debating how flawed my analogy is. What I don't like is people putting false words in my mouth. I think you should apologize for accusing me of saying things I didn't. If I had misunderstood you and accused you wrongly of hypocrisy, *I* would apologize.

On another note, I gotta step away from this thread cause of the Time Suck. My kids are chanting "No more Firefly Fans!"

-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 3:02 AM

Magon

don't really read my posts do you?

I said that the idea helped topple Labour: Tories definitely came across as pro-democracy, and Labour definitely came across as anti-democracy on this issue.

Also, I never said it had anything to do with Tories winning, I said that in my first response to your posting this.

So, are you willing to concede now that it was a Tory idea?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 5:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Since CTS is gone then I get the last word?

CTS: YOu just demonstrated your superior ability to cherry-pick facts: one month in 2008, a volcano that occasionally becomes active..?? you must think scientists are pretty stupid.

First of all, whining "But there are uncertainties, errors!" ... c'mon. You don't think scientists are aware of that? Hell, most of the data my group produces winds up in court one way or another... I spend a GREAT deal of time thinking about how to reduce errors, and how to define the remainder. Scientists think a lot about where to sample, how to analyze, and what it means. I personally know two people who traveled to world to sample air from remote clean locations for detailed analysis, and through volcanic and forest-fire plumes. That CO2 has increased is a robust, repeatable observation which has been made by many means and many nationalities, so its not some western-northern liberal conspiracy.

Quote:
Everything I said was factually correct.

On this topic, you are like Rappy. You will find a isolated fact and repeat it out of context, clinging to it like a drowning person in a sea of data which belies your beliefs.

Yanno, there are people who believe to this day the earth is flat. They will bring up all kinds of reasons to doubt the overwhelming data which says otherwise. But that doesn't mean there is a serious debate on the topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 6:41 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTS

I have hung out on this board long enough before I even posted to know how you argue. Your last defense is: but I never SAID that - exactly. I never used THAT word - specifically. I never MEANT what I posted - really.

You're like a little kid who says they didn't do something b/c some small detail is wrong.

Just grow up already, OK? I'm not daddy, I'm not going to hit you, I'm not trying to invalidate your existence, you don't need to rebel against facts in a sneaky cowardly way - you don't even need to rebel at all.

How about it - give free adulthood a try.

Also, if you read my posts to Rap C.A.R.E.F.U.L.L.Y. you will find not only did I not SAY 'blame' specifically, I never even IMPLIED it, not even once. Not by the direction of my argument, not by the selection of facts I posted, not by any means in any way at all. I was extremely careful to NOT do that. That's how I know he read it in, all by his itty-bitty self.

Your posts, OTOH, don't even come close to that level of care. You actually go out of your way, exactly like Bush, to imply one thing while avoiding specific words. I was pointing out TO YOU that that is a game we can all figure out, and if you want to be given a level of credibility, you need to stop.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 6:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Hell, Debate all ya like - BUT IN THE MEANTIME...

Can we at least agree that perhaps not polluting our living space, and perhaps reducing our impact in that respect is kind of a common sense idea ?

I mean, we can pick the nits to death all in good time, and it frustrates me to no end that every conversation on this topic devolves into exactly that when the principle itself is so bloody obvious it should not need explaining ?

Reminds me of two people fighting over how to patch a boat while it's sinking... who eventually drown cause they got too involved in that to DO any bloody thing.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:01 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I come here for my benefit - for entertainment, discussion, insight. I'm not invested in the relationships, which have long since turned into concrete here, or in the posters, with a few exceptions. So I'm not interested in forging agreements or maintaining solidarity or creating agreeable fictions. I post what I think and discuss what I want. It's not always going to be nicey-nicey. Agree with me, or don't. But if I speak what I see up front, no games, maybe others will respond in kind. If I get that honest response, I will consider my time here well spent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:04 AM

KANEMAN

Man made global warming is overblown fact-hoax(meaning it is always stated as fact when in reality there is a MAJOR debate amongst scientists). Is the earth's climate changing? Yes. Do we really know why? No.

CTS is correct...it is debatable. To close your mind off to that possibility is foolish and CTS should not even bother with you.

Look into the many anti-man-made views...CO2 lagging temp, sunspot cycles, climate history in general, GRBs, etc..

Watch a couple docs on it (maybe start with The Great Global Warming Swindle...although there are better)

Then ask yourself, what
I think CTS was getting at, Considering all the other variables... what is the true role that manmade CO2 plays in GW? And do we want to change our world economy by taxing a hypothesis, while supressing development of poorer countries?

I say hold steady and let the debate continue....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:21 AM

Frem,

Nope, it's hopeless. People would rather pick up a submachine gun and unload it into the bottom of the boat to express their frustration at "outside patchers vs inside patchers" from whichever side they happen to be coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh don't I know it.

Still, it's kind of obligatory for me to TRY.

Oh, and Kiki, go right on with that - I'll take honest over nice any day, and I too find the entrenched positions shelling each other to no effect a little frustrating, but you know, even despite that we do get some quite thought provoking discussions goin on round here.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 12:14 PM

Frem

It's not just the entrenches sides which shell each other, hell half the time I don't know what side people are on, everyone shells everyone. At the moment I just came down with a bug because I've been stocking and restocking and counting inventory a fair amount of which is now stacked up by my bed because all that running through the freezing rain...

This is as good a video game as any, but give me a decent anime and I'll wander off.

Speaking of sparring, if this is the Niki-Rap get a room convention, does that make Wulfie this guy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon

don't really read my posts do you?

Not your longer ones, I confess, but I have probably followed you on this thread reasonable closely.

Quote:
I said that the idea helped topple Labour: Tories definitely came across as pro-democracy, and Labour definitely came across as anti-democracy on this issue.

Also, I never said it had anything to do with Tories winning, I said that in my first response to your posting this.

So it toppled labour, but not helped the tories win???????? Which are you actually saying, or are you saying both because that is quite confusing.

Quote:
So, are you willing to concede now that it was a Tory idea?

So what if it is a Tory idea? Doesn't mean that the Tories are more democratic, only that they see this type of reform as a possible solution. Just because you don't support primary voting doesn't mean you don't support democracy. What a ridiculous Americancentric statement. There have been many calls for electoral reform across the political spectrum, with a number of solutions offered. As I said, there are different systems...creating a system more aligned with the American one which seems riddled with holes and problems anyway, may not solve the current difficulties that the Westminster system is experiencing,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except that Miranda was not implemented with the knowledge or willing participation of its inhabitents and was covered up both before and after, so your analogy is pretty flawed.
I don't mind debating how flawed my analogy is. What I don't like is people putting false words in my mouth. I think you should apologize for accusing me of saying things I didn't. If I had misunderstood you and accused you wrongly of hypocrisy, *I* would apologize.

.

What I see is that you are condemning a voluntary scheme introduced into a willing community who wish to be involved in a trial to make their community a leader in sustainable economics because you personally don't support that scheme, and you personally feel that this is the first step in some totalitarian reckoning of us all.

I'm not going to apologise because I haven't insulted you. I'm having a discussion over the internet, and disputing your views.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You and Dreamtrove have been critical of the rights of the inhabitents to do what they please, as they please.

The accusation that I have been critical of the rights of the inhabitants of NI to do what they please is patently false.

When I challenged you to substantiate that accusation, the best you came up with is that I compared THE PROJECT to Miranda. Apparently somehow in your mind, the words "Reminds me of Miranda" morphed into "Those NI inhabitants have no right to do what they please. Who do they think they are, trying to cut down their CO2 output? They suck for even thinking about doing this." (<--- That would be my idea of criticizing their rights and condemning them.)

I could call this morphing a wild imagination. But you maintain it despite my attempts to clarify that I do not THINK such things, let alone have ever said them. At this point, I can only call this morphing bluntly for what it is: a lie.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not going to apologise because I haven't insulted you. I'm having a discussion over the internet, and disputing your views.

It's ok to lie about things I didn't say just because you think the lie is not insulting?

In my view, it WAS insulting. But my view on this doesn't count, does it?

Never mind. I would like an apology. I would have offered one if it were me. But I didn't expect one.

-----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What I see is that you are condemning ...

And I have told you that you see wrongly. One comparison to Miranda, flawed or not, does not a condemnation make.

-----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: YOu just demonstrated your superior ability to cherry-pick facts: one month in 2008, a volcano that occasionally becomes active..?? you must think scientists are pretty stupid.

Quick note about cherry picking.

If I say kangaroos exist, all the data I need to provide is just ONE instance of a kangaroo.

I don't need photos of ALL the kangaroos in the world. I don't need to show all the places where there are no kangaroos. In arguments about whether an entity exists or not, the fallacy of cherry-picking does not apply.

I am not making the argument that the WHOLE EARTH is either cooling or warming. If I were, and I showed only one month, THAT would be cherry-picking. If I were, I would need to show comprehensive data on all the parts of the earth that are warming vs. all that are cooling per month for thousands of millenia if possible.

If I show one part of the earth cooling for one year as an ILLUSTRATION of the statement, "Parts of the earth are cooling...at different times," it is not cherry picking. Does that part not exist? Are there not more parts like that? I only need one or two instances to substantiate the point those cooling parts exist (you had said they didn't exist).

Now if I had said, these cooling parts make a significant net cooling effect on the earth, and showed only one month or one year or one decade, THEN I would be cherry picking.

See the difference? Cherry-picking only applies to certain types of arguments, arguments that I never made on this thread.

The part about the correction of volcanic contributions is the same thing: argument about existence. Volcanic contributions to the reading DO exist. Corrections for those contributions DO exist.
-----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: YOu just demonstrated your superior ability to cherry-pick facts: one month in 2008,

Ohh... and it wasn't one month. Look at the graph again. It says January to December 2008. It was one whole year.

Correction of this error has nothing to do with the correction of the cherry-picking argument. It's just an aside.

----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SO if I say that global climate change exists, all I need to do is show one instance of it?

I know what you're saying: it's called the null hypothesis, but you've mis-stated it.

Anyway, parts of the earth cooling from time to time is well within the model of global climate change. That's why scientists no longer refer to "global warming"... because they (unlike you) understand that some parts of the earth will warm up much faster while other parts may stay the same or even cool over the short term, some parts will get wetter and many parts will get drier, that extreme weather events of ALL types - droughts, hurricanes, monsoons, blizzards - will become more frequent. But ON THE AVERAGE, the earth will get warmer AND atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased.

Which they undeniably have. Saying that they have not is akin to arguing the earth is flat or that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Why not just accept repeated, robust observations and move forward from there? For example, calculate how much heat so many extra gigatons of carbon dioxide will absorb, and show me (relative to other heat sources) that the amount is trivial and we will actually be having a discussion, not just a denial of reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SO if I say that global climate change exists, all I need to do is show one instance of it?

Yes. And I could not accuse you of cherry picking.

BUT -- we could argue about the definition of global and the definition of climate change.

----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:53 AM

Magon,

After some thought, I am sorry I accused you of lying. It is unkind. I apologize.

----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 5:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
because they (unlike you) understand that some parts of the earth will warm up much faster while other parts may stay the same or even cool over the short term,

I have not given you enough information about my personal positions on GW for you to determine what *I* understand. I have talked about OTHER PEOPLE's positions. Please do not assume them to be my own.

You had made an assertion that there did not exist parts of the earth that were cooling. I was simply correcting that assertion as inaccurate. I was not making an argument about averages either way (which is why cherry-picking is not an issue).

Reality is that the debate exists. What I hear you say is that the debate, in your view, is akin to the flat-earth position, absurd and not legitimate. So, can we agree that there IS a debate then?

If we can agree that the debate even exists, we can move on to whether the debate is legitimate-- which is another issue altogether. We'd have to define legitimacy first.

Personally, I prefer dialectics to debating, hashing one precise and specific issue at a time until an agreement is reached. Then, standing on that agreement, hash out the next issue, step by step. Contrast this to debating, where each side simply takes its best shot, and a third party (presumably lurkers) decides who "wins."

I'm just a bit left-brainy that way.

----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:54 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I started reading this thread and almost thought it was about religion. "Global Warming/Climate Change is the one way and it only happens this one true way with Co2. Your Co2 emissions are an ABOMINATION!" Frankly, I think in 1,000 years or so we're gonna see this debate as irrelevant as most of us view Leviticus (no pork, don't mix clothing fabrics, no football).

I'm looking for an article I read on this written by a NASA scientist, but I just can't seem to find it at the moment. I'll post it if I come across it again, but I'll just have to paraphrase some of it to the best of my ability. The scientist talked about solar cycles or some such and described the Medieval Warm period that lasted for a couple hundred years or so followed by a mini ice age that basically just ended around 1900. So it seems it's just time for us to get a little warmer regardless.

Still, pollution is an issue and more power too this little community for lookin' for answers. I'm with DT on this though, I think it's not our Co2 emissions as much as it's our destroying the Earth's capacity to deal with those kind of things (deforestation and desertification) that is the problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:24 AM