The truth at last

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.


The facts are there. It disagrees with your POV, so it must be wrong.

wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:45 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
You can get up to speed he

http://www.ipcc.ch/

BTW, their website is pitiful, I keep getting connection failed/timed
out
errors on the subsections of the webpage.
- Ken


Must be the crackpots.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You can get up to speed he

http://www.ipcc.ch/

BTW, their website is pitiful, I keep getting connection failed/timed
out
errors on the subsections of the webpage.

Just download the .pdf's and read them at your leisure.


Or download the video and watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11497638&hl=en

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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?

Show me the research Mr. Guy (or can I call you Old ?). Put up
or shut up time for you. You keep talking about research but in
this whole long thread the only thing in *your* bag of tricks is
some crackpot video.

You'd think if this were "The truth at last" you'd be able to cite
some actual research. Where's the beef, Mr. Guy ?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11497638&hl=en

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.

It disagrees with your POV, so it must be wrong.

My views on global warming are informed by and consistent with
the facts.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 13, 11:29 am, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:44 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:

Of course,
while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning off the lights
in empty rooms.

As a result, my heating system needs to consume less energy, in fact
that exact same amount of energy, to heat that room (so long as the
room temp is below the thermostat setting, and ignoring the light
energy leaving through windows).

So is energy wasted? No. I'm not suggesting that light bulbs are an
efficient heat source, but BTU and KwH are measurements of the same
thing, regardless of the source or form. To be sure, there are the
relative overall efficiencies of oil, gas, or electric heat to be
considered, but an electric light bulb left on in an electrically-
heated house is a wash as far as I can see in terms of energy
conservation. Am I missing something?

Lightbulbs are inefficient heating elements. Your furnace (assuming
you
have a reasonably efficient furnace) will heat your house using a
lot less energy than the light bulb would.

Plus if the room is already hot, you'll expend more energy on
fans or air conditioning to compensate for the light bulb.

Turning off the lights is still a tiny amount of energy in the grand
scheme of things
- Ken

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"rb608" wrote in news:1173806008.383231.53870
@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

Based on what little I recall from my readings, I believe the general
scientific opinion is that the human race has it in its power to
significantly reduce or halt GW.

"General scientific opinion" may be too strong a term. Choices are limited;
one can proceed on the assumption that the consequences of global climate
change could be dire enough to warrant drastic and immediate action.....and
that there is still time to do something substantive about it.....or one can
sit back and do nothing. No one has yet made a convincing case for havoc
resulting from reduction of greenhouse gases and other heating factors. As
a bit of an aside (as which it must be regarded since no one talks about it
much), those other factors are more than enough, without taking greenhouse
gases into account, to expose the utter stupidity of suggestions that human
activity cannot possibly have a significant effect on global temperatures.

I was right with you until now. If we don't have an estimate of the human
contribution to global warming, how do we know if its in our power to
reduce or halt it through conservation efforts?

Do the experiment. Check the results.

I'm still trying to catch
up with the '70s projections of an ice-age, and the giaia (sp?) flower-
world model that said increased temperature lead to increased cloud cover
lead to decreased temperature.

Stupid ideas never die. Theories concerning the possibility that current
trends in global climate change might trigger a precipitous decrease in
temperatures are interesting and have not yet been demonstrated to be
untenable. They will likely be with us for a while. If any of them prove
to be correct, their proponents will be vindicated and all of us (meaning
your offspring, or theirs, of course......not my problem) can spend the next
few thousand years sitting in smoky cold caves, alternately smacking our
heads against the cold stone walls and ****ing on our ancestors graves. If
not, they will die. The idea that these theories ever gained any widespread
and firm acceptance among people who occasionally took their heads out of
their asses long enough to see what oxygen is all about, is a stupid one.
It will never die.

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.

This isn't like exit polling in an election.......you'll be dead before the
numbers come in.

Wolfgang

" wrote in message
ps.com...
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!

Moron.

Wolfgang

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.

It disagrees with your POV, so it must be wrong.

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.

On Mar 13, 12:29 pm, "rb608" wrote:

but an electric light bulb left on in an electrically-
heated house is a wash as far as I can see in terms of energy
conservation. Am I missing something?

Not anything significant that I can see. In heating, entropy
plays in our favor.

Being at the bottom rung of energy efficiency already (the
electrically heated house), there ain't much room in that
scenario to do worse. Heat from any other source
_would_ be much more efficient than the light bulb (I
suppose someone out there will want to quibble on the
word "any").

Jon.