The surge



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 8, 5:03 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> There are dozens of factors
>> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
>> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
>> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
>> system.

>
> that is what people try to do with models. by reconstructing past
> climates you can not only validate a model for testing future
> scenarios, but you can also try to isolate the different factors by
> testing different scenarios. granted models aren't perfect, but even
> in medical trials you can't claim 100% confidence in your results.


The problem is that none of the models show either the Medival Warming or
the Little Ice Age and so they're telling us that it doesn't matter.

> as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
> record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
> certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
> dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.


As Jack pointed out, correlation doesn't mean causality. And the record
definitely DOES show that the rises in CO2 occurred after the warming
started.

There are HUGE sources of CO2 outside of man. I started wondering if there
was a database that indicated the level of volcanic activity in the world. I
looked around and could find nothing. Emails to the Geologic Survey, several
universities and to a few volcanologists have so far had absolutely no
responses.

Without a piece of information so important as the rates of CO2 generation
by volcanic activities talking about man-made CO2 is more than a little
rediculous.

> even those that don't believe that CO2 emissions are heating the
> troposphere, like lindzen and spencer agree that the temperature is
> increasing. with or without human intervention, the climate is
> changing ad as bill says, it's unlikely there's going to be anything
> significant humans can or will do about it.


I see that as an incorrect interpretation of the data. Saying that the
climate is changing is like saying that they sun rose. The climate ALWAYS
changes. And it changes between two extremes which we don't have a good
handle on yet. If there's one thing that has typified the climate is that
1/3rd or more of the last billion years has been in the middle of ice ages.

In the last two million years there have been some 60 advances and
recessions of glaciation THAT WE KNOW OF.

Why would it be surprising to anyone that the climate is not just cyclical
but always changing between extremes?
 
[email protected] wrote:

<snip>
>
> so it is conceivable that solar variability could have more dramatic
> effect than a CO2 forcing, even if that that radiative forcing is
> smaller. CO2 is well mixed, whereas the sun doesn't shine evenly over
> the globe.
>


That is not the same thing as saying that changes in solar forcing are
responsible for the majority of the observed increase in temperature over
the last several decades. The paleoclimate record shows that things other
than CO2 are important, but the changes in climate now being observed are
being forced by anthropogenic CO2. This is the position of the IPCC and of
all the people here, you could convincingly argue the IPCC might have
missed something, is that what you're saying? The IPCC is incorrect in
asserting that it is very highly likely that the observed changes are due
to anthropogenic CO2? That sounds more contentious than it was meant to
be, it's not a challenge, just a question.

--
Bill Asher
 
On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree with you that it will completely suck if climate change is related
>to CO2. I sure hope all those IPCC folks are complete fools who have no
>idea what they are talking about.
>
>--
>Bill Asher



Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.
 
On 7 Feb 2007 23:47:46 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>The purpose of the IPCC is precisely that, to define what is the scientific
>concensus opinion concerning climate change.


But there is no consensus. How can there be a consensus on something
that they cannot measure?
 
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:31:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Anyway, Jack, can you seriously dispute what the Prospect
>study turned up or their methodology?


What can you dispute with the Washington Post story. Here's another
more detailed story of Harry Reid's dealings with Abramoff from the
AP. I see no difference between Democrats and republicans in terms of
corruption. They're all corrupt. If you want to live in a fantasy
land and think that the Democrats are not corrupt, then go ahead.



"Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show


By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writers


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least
four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff,
and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced
lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence
obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than
previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected
nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners
and clients.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having "routine contacts" with
Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some government
matters _ such as blocking some tribal casinos _ in ways Abramoff's
clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions
were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

"All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long-
held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond
reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada
constituents," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Reid, D-Nev., has led the Democratic Party's attacks portraying
Abramoff's lobbying and fundraising as a Republican scandal.

But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly
two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied
the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S.
territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a
temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show.

Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways
helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the
Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush
administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the
time of each action.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they
take official acts benefiting donors.

Abramoff's firm also hired one of Reid's top legislative aides as a
lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at
Abramoff's firm that raised donations from several of his lobbying
partners.

And Reid's longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia
arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has
gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has
gripped the Capitol.

Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case and is now
helping prosecutors investigate the conduct of lawmakers,
congressional aides and administration officials his team used to
lobby.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment on the Reid
contacts.

Reid has assailed Republicans' ties to Abramoff while refusing to
return any of his own donations. He argues there's no need to return
the money.

"Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken
contributions from him, and efforts to drag him into this are going to
fail," Manley said. "Abramoff is a convicted felon and no one has
suggested the other partners we might have dealt with have done
anything impermissible."

While Abramoff never directly donated to Reid, the lobbyist did
instruct one tribe, the Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-
exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002.
About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department
helpful to the tribe, records show.

Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests"
recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he
claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff
wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's
Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key
events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff
deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum
wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that
Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action
committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three
weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5,
with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact
didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's
office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists
who work Capitol Hill.

As for the timing of donations, Manley said, "There is no connection.
This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising."

The Marianas, U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean, were one
of Abramoff's highest-paying clients and were trying to keep their
textile industry exempt from most U.S. laws on immigration, labor and
pay, including the minimum wage. Many Democrats have long accused the
islands of running garment sweatshops.

The islands in 2001 had their own minimum wage of $3.05 an hour, and
were exempt from the U.S. minimum of $5.15.

Republicans were intent on protecting the Marianas' exemption.
Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George
Miller of California, wanted the Marianas to be covered by the U.S.
minimum and crafted a compromise.

In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the
U.S. hourly minimum to $6.65 and would have covered the Marianas. The
legislation, which eventually failed, would have given the islands an
initial break by setting its minimum at just $3.55 _ nearly $3 lower
than any other territory or state _ and then gradually increasing it.

Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings
with Reid's staff, starting with a March 26, 2001, contact with Reid
chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum
wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with
Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan.

One of the Marianas contacts, listed for May 30, 2001, was with Edward
Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left
Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering specifically to
lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed
Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.

Manley cast doubt on some of the contacts recorded in the billing
records, saying McCue was out of Washington for a couple of the dates.
But he acknowledged the contacts could have occurred by cell phone.

In January 2002, McCue took a free trip, valued at $7,000, to Malaysia
with several other congressional aides. The trip, cleared by Senate
ethics officials, was underwritten by the U.S. Malaysia Exchange
Association, a group trying to foster better relations between the
United States and Malaysia.

The trips were part of a broader lobbying strategy by Malaysia, which
consulted with Abramoff and paid $300,000 to a company connected to
him, according to documents released by Senate investigators. The
arrangements included a trip by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
and his wife to Malaysia in October 2001.

While Abramoff worked behind the scenes, the Alexander Strategy Group
run by two former DeLay aides, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy, publicly
registered to lobby for the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association.

Rudy, who was cited in Abramoff's court case, had worked temporarily
for Abramoff before joining Buckham at Alexander Strategy, and the
three men were friendly. In January 2002, Alexander Strategy arranged
two congressional trips to Malaysia underwritten by the association.

One trip took a delegation of Republican congressmen. A Democratic
consultant hired by Alexander Strategy, former Clinton White House
aide Joel Johnson, invited McCue and went on the second trip with
congressional staffers.

Johnson said he invited McCue on behalf of Alexander Strategy and went
on the trip with her but said he knew of no connections to Abramoff.
"My interest was in getting Democrats to travel to the country and to
learn more about Malaysia," Johnson said.

Reid intervened on other matters.

On March 5, 2002, he sent a letter to the Interior Department pressing
the agency to reject a proposed casino by the Jena band of Choctaw
Indians in Louisiana. Fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican,
also signed.

The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation
in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block
the Jena. The day after Reid's letter, the Coushattas wrote a $5,000
check to Reid's Searchlight group at Abramoff's suggestion.

Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say
their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and
instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling
establishments.

"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry
in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation
tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote.
Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long
argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton
to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to
convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California.

The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling
establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes.

Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow
Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval
for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have
rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by
Abramoff.

"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully
leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking
President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million
for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the
Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for
school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt
and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election
campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to
Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second
time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Two months later, Abramoff's firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its
Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more
donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob
was instrumental in staging the event, Reid's office said.

___

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this
story."


What more do you want?
 
On Feb 8, 5:55 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I agree with you that it will completely suck if climate change is related
> >to CO2. I sure hope all those IPCC folks are complete fools who have no
> >idea what they are talking about.

>
> >--
> >Bill Asher

>
> Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
> warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.


When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
look as attractive.

We can't sit back and let the hurricanes attack us in our
homeland. We have to take the fight to the hurricanes.
Many hurricanes' last stops before striking us are
Caribbean locales and island nations - Bermuda, the
Bahamas, Cancun, and of course Cuba, those ratfink
weather subversives. We must invade those countries
and root out the hurricanes from their spider holes.

We shall fight the hurricanes on the beaches, we shall
fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the
fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we
shall never surrender. Because if we even think about
it, the hurricanes win. So don't think.

Ben
 
On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > (I asked):
> >> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
> >> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
> >> > in America the Pensionless?

>
> > (TK replied, as usual):
> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?

>
> > You were the one playing the victim card.

>
> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the facts.
> You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose entire
> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every available
> housewife I suppose you might really think that.
>

Tom, The man of the people showing his respect for working tradesmen.
It's tough to have empoathy when your the worlds most excellent
genius.

> > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

>
> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.


Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

>
> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> > first, of course.

>
> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around the
> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China and
> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large . power
> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."

No ****, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.
>
> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> particularly intelligent.


Yep along with JT, Howard, Henry, Me, and everyone else, were all
morons except maybe Tosi, right?
You occasionally make decent points, and are one of the few here
vocally conservative, but I've always said that it's more important to
condemn and question those who are on your side when they are out
there. In this case you've finally hit my tolerance level. I've felt
sorry for you, and held back for ages over all the STUPID **** you've
come up with, but enough is enough. We'll agree from time to time, and
I'll say so, but I'm embarrassed that you and I are on the same side
at times.
I have a lot more disagreements with Amit, but he's a hellm of a lot
more reasonable, and IMO better person than you are.
The level of paranoia, arrogance, hatred, delusionality, and
persecution complex really are sad from someone who is obviously smart
and talented.
If it makes me scum, so be it. I'm standing with Howard, TP, Kyle,
Greg, Curtis, etc...
Bill C
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The CO2 phenomena here on earth (absorbing infrared radiation) was
> explained to me by a former racing friend who has a phd in physics.


Then you might very well have a good story on CO2 and its effects on the
Earth. Venus is another matter altogether that has a great deal more to do
with having an impossibly thick atmosphere and surface temperatures of some
800 degrees under a blanket of sulfuric acid clouds so thick that no heat
escapes. The pressure gradient is so steep that it is absolutely impossible
for anyone here to even suggest what is going on there.

> His understanding of that sort of phenomena is really high. He's one
> of the co-inventors of the "invisibility cloak" of electromagnetic
> radiation in microwave frequencies. I'll listen to him before an
> "expert" like yourself.


Fine, then ask him if the temperatures on Venus are caused by the high CO2
content of its atmosphere. Then come back here and make one of your expert
pronoucements.

> I remember a little over a year ago you were touting your expertness
> on tectonic plate phenomena after the Indonesian tsunami. Do you
> recall what you said? What a joke you are.


Perhaps you'd like to cite what you think I said?
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip>
>
> Fine, then ask him if the temperatures on Venus are caused by the high
> CO2 content of its atmosphere. Then come back here and make one of
> your expert pronoucements.
>


http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

For the love of god shut up about Venus, the runaway greenhouse effect and
the nearly pure CO2 composition of the atmosphere are the prime cause of
the H2SO4 clouds.

http://tinyurl.com/dhxf3

--
Bill Asher
 
Jack Hollis wrote:

<snip>
>
> Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
> warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.
>


You must like mosquitoes.

--
Bill Asher
 
Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 23:47:46 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The purpose of the IPCC is precisely that, to define what is the
>>scientific concensus opinion concerning climate change.

>
> But there is no consensus. How can there be a consensus on something
> that they cannot measure?


Scientists can and have measured changes in the global climate or global
properties related to climate (e.g., sea level) over the last several
decades. The consensus opinion the IPCC was mandated to form was whether
these changes in climate, which have been documented in the peer-reviewed
literature independently of the IPCC, were due to changes in the radiative
balance of the atmosphere due to anthropogenic CO2.

Changes in things like sea ice cover, global mean temperature, and mean
rainfall can be measured. The task of the IPCC is to sift through what is
known in terms of the observations, what is known about the physics and
chemistry relating to those observations, and what the results of models
say about how all the physics and chemistry combine to produce different
effects, and come to a consensus conclusion as to which processes could
possibly be responsible for those observations. The result of the
deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely that
the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed changes.

The only place there is no consensus is in the minds of people who don't
understand the process. Why do you not believe the IPCC's conclusions? On
this issue, they know more than you do and they know more than any of the
"experts" saying they've gotten it wrong.

--
Bill Asher
 
On 8 Feb 2007 22:24:12 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>The total greenhouse forcing of the sun is an order of magnitude less than
>additional greenhous forcing of CO2.



The sun's activity cycle and climate change is very complex and no one
can claim to fully understand it. However, previous warming periods
seem to be related to the sun's activity and not CO2.

In any case, the sun's effects include temperature, cosmic rays, UV
rays and magnetically charged particles that interact with the earth's
magnetic field and ozone layer. Cosmic radiation is also known to
effect the amount of clouds on earth.

The IPCC has absolutely no way of knowing exactly how much the sun's
variability is contributing to global warming any more than they know
how much CO 2 is contributing to global warming.
 
> > On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't see your point.


Maybe look at the base again: "If people need less energy..." Nowhere
is that said. It is the opposite. Also, purge "need" from the
language. Just say "use." They'll *use* more.

> Tom was saying his energy bill would go up.


It will (for tax "solutions"). So will everyone else's energy bill in
CA. (It'll go up if he get's richer too, since he'll be spending
more. So leftist solutions basically say to stall wealth increase, or
even to reverse it. That is some bad ju-ju. I have no idea what
right-wingers say.)

> The paper you link to
> indicates the opposite is true,...


It doesn't say that. Read it again. For example: "The end result is
a new balance between supply and demand at a /higher level/ of supply
and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response." [my
emphasis]

> ...energy will become cheaper...


Well, energy might be cheaper, for whatever reason, but generator
efficiency isn't the _particular_ topic. Regardless, it wouldn't
change matters. People would just use more, ceteris paribus.

> ... if efficiency increases...


What efficiency for the individual? A new and more efficient vehicle
doesn't just show up in his driveway magically. Nor does new and more
effficent house, central air,... nor... _anything_. Someone has to
pay for that stuff.

> and his bill will go down provided he doesn't use the
> decreased cost to do something like air condition his
> carport.


But that is at the very heart of the issue. More will be used with
improved efficiency (ceteris paribus), because some will go into
capital/productivity improvements. It won't necessarily mean more
energy in CA, but it won't help the global picture at all.

If I save a dollar on my energy bill due to added efficiency, I just
spend it on something else, or effectively invest it (even demand
deposits get lent out).

What does it mean to spend it? Well, say I buy a new ceramic coffee
mug. Mass is neither created or destroyed, although the title (owner)
can change. For the global aggregate, all that happened was a
reformation and transportation of the mass that is the coffee mug.
The operation is 100% energy -- the property title change is
irreleveeeaaant (sp?) to the aggregate. Not one joule of energy is
saved in the aggregate, ceteris paribus. (All activity is energy
driven, by definition. Energy is a special sort of good that way.)

If it is invested instead of me spending, the same problem occurs.
Someone starts a business, and they turn on the lights. Not one joule
is saved.

Say instead the dollar is taxed away. The new guvmint administrator
drives to work and turns on the lights. Not one joule is saved.

Say the dollar is taxed away, and given to some new firm doing
research on "alternative energy" generators. Those folks drive to
work and turn on the lights. Not one joule is saved.

To the extent the taxing tactic retards efficiency improvements and
economic growth (and it will), then that will "help." But the irony
is that the advocates of these tactics say exactly the opposite.

Transient downward shocks can certainly happen, especially the more
local they are. Those shocks could be induced by guvmint policy. But
most folks care about the trend of the time dependent rate more than
the integral, since the rate determines the integral. Also, a
downward trend makes the people exposed to it poorer, as we've already
essentially said.

> That paper argues that the total energy use goes up as efficieny
> rises so in a global sense it is counterproductive to reduce efficiency if
> one wants to minimize carbon output. I don't find that shocking.


Well, that makes you almost as special as me.

Carbon output can be reduced by using other types of energy
generators. But... so-called "renewables" can't compete on price, and
worse they just can't generate enough. Tax dollars won't fix that --
improvements will be fractional at best, for a small fraction of the
demanded power. They also have their own environmental issues. Nukes
could probably make a big dent in the "carbon problem," since they
produce zero emission of that type. They are price competitive, and
can produce huge amounts of power, but people fear the waste products
(a political problem at a minimum).

In general, popular talk about "global energy conservation" and
"global warming" -- when it comes to energy -- is very bad in
quality.

From: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

"The main problem with this argument is that climatologists don't want
anymore money. They want you to fix the problem by funding
alternative energy research which is a completely different field of
work involving completely different people."

This wrong view is enormously popular, and is the poorly formed
siamese twin to both "global energy conservation" and "global warming"
talk. I wish it were true. But it is badly off the mark.

I have nothing against local energy conservation. I love it. I do it
myself as much as I can afford to do. But I do it because I think it
makes me better off. I don't do it because I'm sure it makes less
pollution, or ends up using less energy. I wish it did, because then
I could feel morally superior for driving my 1.0L Geo Metro, with
compact flourescents in the hatch, ready for screw-ins out at the
ranch.

> I've never said I thought there was a solution to climate change, I've said
> the opposite, there is no solution.
> There will be no effective remediation
> of greenhouse gases. However, knowing that does not permit me to deny the
> fundamental correctness of the science. Climate is changing, we are
> responsible for it, and nothing will ever be done about it. Don't assume
> just because I believe climate change is true that I think draconian carbon
> regulations are a good thing or practical. Once you reach a certain level
> of apathy you can realize that at best believing in climate change is a
> good way to tweak the scientific illiterati on the internet.


I know your stance. You've said it many times.
 
On 8 Feb 2007 22:24:12 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>All of your hypothesized reasons why we shouldn't be concerned about global
>warming, or more accurately, why we shouldn't regulate carbon in order to
>address the issue do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.



No, I'm saying that no one knows for sure exactly how much CO2 is
contributing to global warming. I'm also saying that it is logical to
assume that CO2 has some effect.

The earth's climate has always been changing. In that respect it's
neither good or bad, it's simply a fact. I have serious doubt if
humans can do anything to stop global warming or stop an ice age
either. The earth's temperature has been a lot hotter in the past
than it is today and it's been a lot colder as well. These
temperature extremes are certainly inconvenient for humans, but so are
a lot of other natural phenomena. I'm confident that the human race
will survive both global hot periods and ice ages which are a natural
part of the earth's climate. Personally, I wish the politicians would
spend more time worrying about us being hit by a large asteroid or
comet. That's something that could end all human life on this planet
in a very short time.
 
On Feb 8, 5:37 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> > richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

>
> Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.


Whoosh...

Right on over the top.
 
On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>While is it strictly true that correlation does not imply causality, tight
>correlation coupled with a model based on proven physics explaining that
>a correlation should exist strongly suggests causality.



However, that really doesn't exist. If you look at the graphs that
have been presented you see that from about 1940 to 1965 the global
temperature actually went down during a period when the CO2 levels
continued to rise. If CO2 has such a strong effect then this should
not have happened. Clearly there are other factors at work.

See the global chart.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html


Of course, there also is the fact that previous warming periods have
occurred without any rise in CO2. The data shows that CO2 begins to
rise well after the warming period begins. This lag also indicates
that CO2 is not necessary for the climate to get warmer. Some
researchers see the CO2 rise as a result of global warming rather than
a cause. However, it's logical to assume that the CO2 then
contributes to the warming trend. If global warming had always
followed a rise in CO2 in the past, then the causal link would be much
easier to prove.
 
On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Nearly all of the climate dynamicists on the planet agree that CO2 is
>responsible for the warming. You've provided nothing in the way of
>credible scientific evidence to dispute them.


In fact, they've provided no evidence to support that CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming because science is unable to do that.
 
On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>The idea that humans are directly responsible for changing the climate
>shouldn't be so hard to swallow. Nothing will be done about it, nothing
>will stop it, and while denying it doesn't hurt anything since the
>situation is essentially hopeless anyway, it is intellectually silly.


I agree that nothing significant will be done about it. However, my
skepticism about the CO2 theory of global warming stands on sound
scientific ground. I can't say with any certainty that they're wrong,
but I also can't say with any certainty that they're right. All I can
say is that it's logical to assume that the increase in CO2 caused by
humans is having some effect on global warming. The amount of the
effect is unknown.
 
On Feb 8, 5:27 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:55 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:


> > Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
> > warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.

>
> When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
> look as attractive.


Mr. Tax Religion,

You're going down and there's nothing you can do about. Not a
trillion tax dollars will save your sorry ass. See you in hell. In
the mean time, enjoy the Tour de Greenland.

have a nice day,
SLAVE
 
On 8 Feb 2007 15:36:39 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
>record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
>certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
>dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.



Actually, the opposite is true. The data shows that CO2 increases
only occur after global warming has occurred. It's hard to say that
CO2 caused global warming in the past when the increase in CO2
happened after the warming period was already centuries old.

Thus the CO2 seems to have an amplifying effect (of undetermined
amount) rather than a causal effect. The strongest correlations occur
for CO2 and temperature with a lag of 1900 years.


"In investigating this question, Siegenthaler et al. say they obtained
the best correlation between CO2 and temperature "for a lag of CO2 of
1900 years." Specifically, over the course of glacial terminations V
to VII, they indicate that "the highest correlation of CO2 and
deuterium, with use of a 20-ky window for each termination, yields a
lag of CO2 to deuterium of 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively."
In addition, they note that "this value is consistent with estimates
based on data from the past four glacial cycles," citing in this
regard the work of Fischer et al. (1999), Monnin et al. (2001) and
Caillon et al. (2003). Clearly, therefore, it is temperature that is
the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is
but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well
be miniscule) - of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature
change.

This observation does little to inspire confidence in climate-alarmist
claims that the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels will lead
to catastrophic temperature increases, which predicted warmings, in
some of their scenarios, rival those experienced in
glacial-to-interglacial transitions. Nevertheless, Siegenthaler et
al. stubbornly state that the new findings "do not cast doubt ... on
the importance of CO2 as a key amplification factor [our italics] of
the large observed temperature variations of glacial cycles."

In vivid contrast to this unsupported contention, it is our opinion
that when temperature leads CO2 by thousands of years, during both
glacial terminations and inceptions (Genthon et al., 1987; Fischer et
al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999; Clark and Mix, 2000; Indermuhle et al.,
2000; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003),
there is plenty of reason to believe that CO2 plays but a minor role
in enhancing temperature changes that are clearly induced by something
else, which latter italicized point is an undisputed fact that is
clearly born out by the new ice core data."

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp