The truth at last

On Mar 13, 10:33 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Again, I don't doubt global warming, but I'd really like to see the firm
numbers before I sign on to the cause du jour. When people say we can
change things, I'd like to know how much.

Heretic!

:-),
- Ken

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
t:

Scott Seidman wrote:
The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming
are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles
contribute to global warming.

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.



Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help. You sink your resources into what
careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of course,
while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning off the lights
in empty rooms.

I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of alternative
fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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/

--
Ken Fortenberry

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
t:

Scott Seidman wrote:
The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global
warming are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our
lifestyles contribute to global warming.

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.



Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really
is a God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help. You sink your resources into
what careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of
course, while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning
off the lights in empty rooms.

I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of
alternative fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.


Also, about once a month, some editor or other sends me a manuscript for
review, where the authors assert the contents contain solid science.
About half the time, its true, about half the time its not.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming
are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles
contribute to global warming.
More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help. You sink your resources into what
careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of course,
while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning off the lights
in empty rooms.

I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of alternative
fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.

What would you have been doing while Rome was burning ? A careful
analysis ? ;-)

No matter how careful the analysis there will always be sensitive
types who refuse to be convinced.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 13, 10:45 am, 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.

That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.

Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?
- Ken

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


What would you have been doing while Rome was burning ? A careful
analysis ? ;-)


Wow! What an alarmist.


No matter how careful the analysis there will always be sensitive
types who refuse to be convinced.

Sensitive types? What? You mean the ones who actually look hard at the
research?

On Mar 12, 8:21 am, "Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
There is no Global Warming. Anybody who gets his science from
politicians is seriously deluded.

Does this mean my old friend Tim thinks "there is no global warming?"
It seems to me the only question at all is the "human influence"
issue.
The world is getting dramatically warmer. There is no question about
that.

If man does play a role in this undeniable warming (increased
greenhouse gasses, perhaps)
then that question becomes an important issue, because perhaps there
is still something
that could be done to slow the warming.

But even if it turns out the warming is "a natural phenomenon" (which
I
doubt) we're still in deep kim chee. At current warming rates it
won't be long before you
can forget about bonefishing in the Bahamas. And wall street bankers
in New Yawk will need canoes to get to work.

The degree of widespread denial on this issue is interesting, if not
amazing.
So is the ideological divide.
Libertarians are utopian thinkers who desperately cling to the idea
the one true way.
......"if only we lived by free market rules, everything would be just
fine." So
it's not surprising they refuse to believe what is now before our
eyes.
Because--if the warming has been caused by industrial activity--then
the free market utopia repudiated.

Religion plays a role too. Just last week Rush Limbaugh said "I can
prove
global warming is a bunch of liberal hooey. If you think about it, you
quickly realize it is impossible to believe in god and global warming
at
the same time. And I believe in god. Therefore global warming is
impossible."

There may or may not be some question
about man's role as a potential cause of the warming. But there is no
question about the
temperatures and the melting. In ten more years, at this rate of
change,
there will be no other topic of conversation.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves represent roughly
20 meters of ocean level apiece. Greenland ice cores do
show periods of rapid melting and refreezing in the past.
There are periods, in relatively recent times, when ice age
conditions occillated with temperate conditions on period
of less than a decade. No one understands that at all.

But that lack of understanding makes dramatic change
no less alarming.

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I told you this before, if you have facts let's see them. Point
me to refereed, actual science not some crackpot Internet site.
You can't.

same old nonsense snipped

Yeah, that's what I thought, all hat and no cattle. It's no wonder
you post here anonymously.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 13, 10:44 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote . net:
More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken