Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:16:50 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Larry wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307
@newsfe03.lga:

I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry.

Larry

Yeah. I had the link to the BBC video a few weeks ago, but when they
archived the video, the link went dead.

It is difficult to take scientific claims seriously when those making
them cannot even identify the channel which produced this video, after
a number of tries. It only takes a google search on the title.
It is British TV station Channel 4 which produced "The Great Global
Warming Swindle."
The google search will also find that it has already been discredited
by some of those who appeared in it. But they are probably simply
lying professional scientists out for grant money.
Carry on, "climatologists."

--Vic

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
m:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can
they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than
the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm
passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the
demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were
never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or
cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated
or
not.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf

Fine but little dated now.


Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?

There's no "fact" that we are responsible. That's a hotly debated
conclusion made by a small team of researchers. Its hardly agreed upon
globally. But it is a very nice rallying cry and a great reason for
fund raising efforts.

So who gets the money for all this fund raising?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Stephen Trapani wrote, On 3/30/2007 10:23 AM:
mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?

Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world.

Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular
population. Usually obtained by compromise. Some members may not
fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the
consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion.

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.

The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that? While there are certainly some that have made a career from
global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded
by some "global warming conspiracy."

Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research
interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country,
the government has not been very eager to support GW research. On the
other hand, historically the skeptics have been funded to find flaws
in the theory. This is changing however, as even the major oil
companies are in agreement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.

also sprach big-oil

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:23:45 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?
Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?
Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

and you are wrong as well

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

your impugning the motives of academics renders whatever "argument" you
are intending to make, fallacious and therefore invalid.

Hardly. It validates the very premise of scientific research - honest
and questioning "skeptism". So open discussion and questioning of the
measurements, methods, analysis and conclusions are part of the research
process.

People drawing final conclusions without questioning the results are
shortcutting the process. Those questioning part of the process where
it may impact the results have at least as much right to argue the
results as those blindly accepting them without question.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Jeff wrote:
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 11:02 AM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:50:14 -0400, Jeff said:

You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate
financial reward.

What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the
question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring
minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change

Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


Climate predictions are very long-range. The evidence you seem to point
to is over much too short a period. It needs to be over tens of
thousands or millions of years, not a few hundred.

There is VERY SOLID evidence that global warming has been on-going in
THIS cycle for 15,000 years. There's also historical evidence that this
kind of warming / cooling cycle has been going on as long as there are
ways to measure the changes.

The current cycle is no different than previous cycles. And there is
absolutely NO irrefutable proof that man has caused this warming.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote:
Jeff wrote:
You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

You've missed the point, again. Jeff is modelling the fallacy in the other guy's argument.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:



Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid?



Especially considering that the original research on which all the
global warming statements and subsequent research is built go back a lot
more than six years.