|
Went up to the boat today
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "mr.b" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. Even if this were true (it's not -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png) an increase in atmospheric CO2 is constantly presented, by certain people, as a "bad thing." CO2 is an essential link for all life on this planet. More CO2 available in the air, and slightly warmer temperatures, is a good thing. Rather than worry about CO2 people should be more worried about O2. I read in one article where in times past the percentage of oxygen in the air has ranged between 15% to 25%. Today it is around 21% if I recall correctly. When it was 25 percent fires popped up constantly and burned out of control. Even wet stuff would burn. The article said giant animals and insects like dragon flies with a 28" wing span thrived because of the rich oxygen content. One of the big die-offs occurred when the O2 levels got down around 15%. Animals just couldn't adapt fast enough and pretty much suffocated to death. And today we have short-sighted morons the likes of Al Gore and his minions worried to death about an insignificant raise in the CO2 levels. Somebody needs to slap the **** out of all of them. Give them something real to worry about. Wilbur Hubbard |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" "More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable, choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection." Eric Stevens |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:18:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:
Hey Peter, Could you set the time (or the time zone) properly on your machine. I normally sort by time and your post always show up many hours out of sequence. Don't worry, I won't accuse you of time zone plagiarism, there is no copyright on the correct time. Hi Jeff, Sorry, When I change time zones it is easier to change time and date without the zone. I keep track of different times in Sydn ey and Malaysia on my Palm. I have another on the bulkhead which constantly keeps UT. Never thought it mattered too much Done. cheers Peter |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:04 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:19:31 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: snip honey, in order to take the high ground, you need to know where it is. Good luck in your search. Hey! He called me "honey"! Guess I made an impression after all. All I need now is a nice little pat on the butt. Karen, I simply love to but I''m just a bit too far away. Can I take a rain cheque in case I come your way some day? Perhaps it is an opportunity to "turn the other cheek". Take it as a compliment |
Went up to the boat today
Peter Hendra wrote in
: 6,010 years Archbishop Usher set the date as 9am in the morning of the 10th of October 4004 BC They probably cut anyone's head off that asked where His Immenseness got that information....(c; Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Went up to the boat today
"Dennis Pogson" wrote in
: A British gallon is 4.55 litres, but we pay about 4 times as much for it (gas) than our US cousins, so I guess it really doesn't matter! Dennis. Hey! Socialized medicine ISN'T free, ya know, just "price displaced"...(c; Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Went up to the boat today
|
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts From the authoritative site you provide for us: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by someone who actually knows something about this issue. |
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:04:33 +0000, Larry wrote:
Peter Hendra wrote in : 6,010 years Archbishop Usher set the date as 9am in the morning of the 10th of October 4004 BC They probably cut anyone's head off that asked where His Immenseness got that information....(c; Larry No Larry, They weren't that barbaric in the 17th century. They just burned them alive at the stake. This was more civilised as they might sometimes be given the chance to recant before they were burned in which case they were humanely strangled first, burned after. At least their souls would be saved. Peter |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:33:51 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts From the authoritative site you provide for us: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by someone who actually knows something about this issue. There is nothing like slinging mud, calling names and changing the subject when it comes to responding to an argument you can't deal with. I gave you the URL because it is the only place on the web where you can find a reference to the paper. You can if you like buy a copy of the peer-reviewed paper via Energy & Environment, 18:2 March/April 2007 http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm It might be a good idea. Then you would be able to deal with the facts. Eric Stevens |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com