Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"Dan" wrote:



But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet.

Yep, and sometimes the "experiment" has produced mass extinctions. We're
fortunate to be living in an epoch of mild climate that should last for a
long time. Why would we want to mess with it?

What's happening now is different. This is a massive artificial addition of
CO2, unprecedented for its suddenness. There's been nothing like it for at
least 800,000 years, probably much longer.

One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity

Absolutely not. Where'd you get that idea?

In fact, that is one of the red herrings used by the disinformation
lobbyists. They like to say that every wiggle downward in temperature proves
that CO2 rise isn't causing warming because the CO2 increase is steady and
warming isn't. Scientists know that a lot of things influence climate
annually, but the overall *trend* is up and no cause but a 35% rise in the
CO2 level accounts for it.

-- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.

Nope. All those things are considered. The IPCC concentrates on the AGHG
forcing component because that is the variable humans can change. Do you
really believe the scientists who contributed to the IPCC don't know about
those things?

"Dan" wrote:

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Utter nonsense. The only thing we haven't got a handle on is how the first
proto-life appeared on the planet (Creationists are the ones who claim to
know). Everything since is pretty well figured out. It's a fact that all
the species that exist today evolved, not poofed.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.

Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?

Nope. There are plenty, but here's one:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html


CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a
different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because
plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they
have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from
ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C
ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these
materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average
13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

On Mar 11, 11:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?


Unless they shoot back.

And be careful with those blue Suburbans with blacked out windows.


Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.
Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.

Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed

On Mar 11, 12:22 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Utter nonsense. The only thing we haven't got a handle on is how the first
proto-life appeared on the planet (Creationists are the ones who claim to
know). Everything since is pretty well figured out. It's a fact that all
the species that exist today evolved, not poofed.

Facts are observable and substantiated by evidence. You have neither
for your off the reservation claim. All you're doing is revealing your
presuppositions, not "stating fact."



Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.
Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?

Nope. There are plenty, but here's one:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a
different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because
plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they
have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from
ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C
ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these
materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average
13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Hardly compelling.

Talk-n-Dog wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.
Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.

Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed


That finge is shote than the est.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Talk-n-Dog wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.
Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
Took the wods tight out of my mouth.
Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed


That finge is shote than the est.


Bertie
OUCH

"Dan" wrote:


It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Yes, they are.

But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes and
radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it is
now, wouldn't it?

Hardly compelling.

Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
them.

Talk-n-Dog wrote in newsczBj.17534
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Talk-n-Dog wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.
Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
Took the wods tight out of my mouth.
Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed


That finge is shote than the est.


Bertie
OUCH


Yeah. The rest is in sawdust in a jointing machine...

bertie

On Mar 11, 1:33 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Yes, they are.

But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes and
radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it is
now, wouldn't it?

Yes they are because you said so or because there is evidence
supporting this?

And -- to use the scientific term -- possibly.

Hardly compelling.

Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
them.

Once again with the labels.


Dan