The truth at last

wrote in message
ps.com...
The three graphs he

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHA..._figs/fig3.gif

are for me convincing enough. Yeah it's not perfect, but
the last 50 years can be "accurately" reproduced when both
natural and anthropogenic global warming effects are
modeled.

When has anything that produced the results you wanted to see ever failed to
be convincing enough?

Wolfgang

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"rb608" wrote in news:1173814996.907721.300450@
8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com:

IF you wanted to heat your house with light bulbs,
why would that use more energy than a heat pump?


What if you really wanted to cool your house??

Light bulbs would be a bad choice.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:5GDJh.7142
:

13thchoise wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Global Warming is real and nobody with any sense can deny it.
Anybody who disputes the overall findings of the IPCC Assessment
Report Summary released in Paris last month is a flat-earth idiot.

The facts are in, the scientists have spoken. Period. You can have
a debate about how to address Global Warming but the fact that it's
real is no longer in question. And anybody who tells you different
is a friggin' nutcase.
snip
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

That is a good article well-written in layman terms. Thanks for
the link.


Especially the end:
"Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice,
but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the
shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer
from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until
this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes,
scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank."

Personally, I'd like to read an analysis of how good the ice core data
is. I found the original Nature paper, and it's been cited about 1200
times, but they don't really do a very critical analysis. I'd love to
see such analysis done by a physicist that understands the transport of
gas through a crystalline solid over the course of hundreds of thousands
of years.




--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
When you get some facts let me know, until then you're just so much
noise.

The facts are there.

Where ? Show me.
My views on global warming are informed by and consistent with
the facts.

Can lead you to water, but can't make you drink.

Keep that mind of your's closed. We don't want to clutter it with facts.

That's what I thought, Mr. Guy. You're a one-trick pony. All you
got is the one crackpot video that impressed the hell out of you
and that should be enough to convince anybody. That's not the way
it works, Mr. Guy. Like I said, when you get some facts let me
know, until then you're just so much anonymous noise.



Yeah. Its a crackpot video because it disagrees with your POV. Keep
that mind of yours closed.

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"rb608" wrote in
news:1173814996.907721.300450@ 8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com:

IF you wanted to heat your house with light bulbs,
why would that use more energy than a heat pump?


What if you really wanted to cool your house??

Light bulbs would be a bad choice.

Wolfgang




I'm amazed that the remarkable culinary capabilities of the easy bake oven
have not entered into this subthread.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
13thchoise wrote:
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
That is a good article well-written in layman terms. Thanks for
the link.

Especially the end:
"Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice,
but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the
shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer
from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until
this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes,
scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank."

Personally, I'd like to read an analysis of how good the ice core data
is. I found the original Nature paper, and it's been cited about 1200
times, but they don't really do a very critical analysis. I'd love to
see such analysis done by a physicist that understands the transport of
gas through a crystalline solid over the course of hundreds of thousands
of years.

But wouldn't that physicist necessarily be an academic, group-think,
leftist scientist from the cloister culture ? How on earth could you
ever trust his/her critical analysis to be impartial ? 1/2 :-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
That's what I thought, Mr. Guy. You're a one-trick pony. All you
got is the one crackpot video that impressed the hell out of you
and that should be enough to convince anybody. That's not the way
it works, Mr. Guy. Like I said, when you get some facts let me
know, until then you're just so much anonymous noise.

Yeah. Its a crackpot video because it disagrees with your POV. Keep
that mind of yours closed.

When you get some facts let me know, until then you're just so
much anonymous noise.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:KnEJh.7868
:

But wouldn't that physicist necessarily be an academic, group-think,
leftist scientist from the cloister culture ? How on earth could you
ever trust his/her critical analysis to be impartial ? 1/2 :-)



You're right. In fact, if the guy is a convert from high energy physics,
those guys are dependent upon big government for their expensive toys, and
are lefties by definition!!

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:45:08 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Paraphrasing. "Not one credible person disagrees with me.
Anyone who disagrees with me is not credible."
That's not paraphrasing, that's putting words in my mouth. It
has nothing to do with agreeing with me and everything to do
with being a credible interpreter of fact.

So I've been looking for data to help me make up my mind and
haven't been able to find it.

Since you've obviously made up your mind I assume you've
found it.

How much CO2 is naturally produced in a year? How
much are humans producing? What is the total amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Seriously,

Pre-industrial age concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ~280 ppm,
in 2005 it was 379 ppm. The natural range as measured over the last
650,000 years is 180 - 300 ppm.

You can get up to speed he

http://www.ipcc.ch/

I was curious to see what the hell caused 70-something replies in a few
hours, so I read a few of them, and this was one. Not to get into the
debate (IMO, man certainly contributes to CO2 in the atmosphere, but how
much it effects things is certainly unknown), but you might wish to
Google up info on historic levels of CO2. Using several techniques (ice
core, stomatal sp?, etc.) has indicated that historic CO2 levels have
been highly variable, and have been indicated as high as the 350 ppm
range, with the indication of "spikes" similar to the last 40-50 years.
That said, it does appear that current levels are higher than anything
in the past, at least insofar as what can be "measured"/extrapolated
from the past by current techniques. IMO, man ought to do all he can to
lessen his potential negative impact, and if it turns out that man
really wasn't having a negative impact, there's certainly no harm done
by erring on the side of caution. And whatever the case, Al and his
Gorons are as full of **** as a Christmas goose.

TC,
R

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
That's what I thought, Mr. Guy. You're a one-trick pony. All you
got is the one crackpot video that impressed the hell out of you
and that should be enough to convince anybody. That's not the way
it works, Mr. Guy. Like I said, when you get some facts let me
know, until then you're just so much anonymous noise.

Yeah. Its a crackpot video because it disagrees with your POV. Keep
that mind of yours closed.

When you get some facts let me know, until then you're just so
much anonymous noise.



Let's not lose sight of the FACT that you're refusing to review the
video. Its only crackpot because it disagrees with your POV.

Please don't view the video. I'm having way too much fun observing
someone as closed-minded and narrow as you.