Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 8, 11:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
:

On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Long may we reign.

If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one.

Bertie


I'll pick a short time over a lengthy existence with the alarmists in
charge.

Yikes -- talk about un-fun.

Dan

Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog
wrote:
Ducati will do 130, been there.


With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed.

Just like an airplane.

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 8, 11:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
:

On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support"
your position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3
above.

Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Long may we reign.

If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one.

Bertie


I'll pick a short time over a lengthy existence with the alarmists in
charge.

Yikes -- talk about un-fun.


What is an alarmist?

Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

But let me ask you something: Are you 100% sure your house is going to burn
down this year? If not, why are you wasting your money on insurance? Why
don't you just wait until you see flames, then buy a policy?

Not a good analogy, since we can obviously affect what happens to our own
homes. There is quite literally nothing that can be done by the average
person to influence the world's climate -- one way or the other -- so all
this blather and hand-wringing is nothing but noise and fury, signifying
nothing.

Nah. Humans are doing it, humans can stop doing it.

Well, except to the folks who stand to make a few billion dollars in
windfall profits by "studying" the phenomenon.

You heard that somewhere, evidently; whom are you talking about, exactly?

But all argument aside, I would politely ask for a list of things that we --
you and I -- can do that will "help" the climate problem as you see it.

Support taking tax breaks away from oil companies and applying them to
alternative energy development. Vote against politicians who are dumping
subsidies into bio-ethanol production and for politicians who'll spend the
money on solar and wind power. Drive a more fuel efficient car. Apply energy
conserving methods to your home and business.

Note that giving up your airplane is nowhere on the above list.


And I have a polite question: Do you understand why a 3 deg. C rise in global
average temperature by 2100 is a big deal?

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

"Dan" wrote:

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Did a little light go on?

Long may we reign.

When will you start?


--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their hysteria.

Bottom line is we can throw numbers and counterpoints till hell freezes over
(which is just as likely as the next MWP) and we will not convince the other
to change their mind (due to the trust in "lies, lies, and statistics" we
both exhibit).

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)

Now, if you want to discuss whether we should pay attention to a cleaner
environment and alternative energy sources to improve quality of life, we
have room to talk. Continuing to batter non-believers about the head trying
to force them to believe the AGW tripe is just as fruitless as the faithful
trying to convert an atheist.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

"Dan" wrote:


FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
term trends.

Out of date.

NAC report, 2006:

"The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for
periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric
greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence
supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to
human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. "


FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).

Yeah, that's a fact. At least you got one right.

What you apparently don't know is that many scientists whose work was used by
the IPCC have said that the 4AR was too conservative.


FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory

Wrong. Hansen is not "the father of greenhouse theory."

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm




and Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--

Renowned? Haw-haw-haw! You mean notorious. Lindzen is a whore.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ichard_Lindzen



FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.


FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.



Science doesn't prove things. Science develops theories that describe events
and processes in nature. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is now so
robust it is accepted by every major scientific organization in the world. Of
course, I realize you find Michael Crichton more credible.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-of-confusion/


--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

"John T" wrote:


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their hysteria.

Derbyshire is a conservative columnist who agrees that AGW is a fact. It is
the denier crowd who wishes it would all go away.


Bottom line is we can throw numbers and counterpoints till hell freezes over
(which is just as likely as the next MWP) and we will not convince the other
to change their mind (due to the trust in "lies, lies, and statistics" we
both exhibit).

Sorry, there's a big difference between your and my level of credulousness on
this issue. In order for you to maintain your position, you must allow
yourself the belief that virtually all the active geo-scientists in the world
are stupid, lying or stifled by a giant conspiracy. That is simply not
believable without deliberate self deception.


The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands "proof" in
that way. And this proof that is demanded is never defined. This tactic is
an old one; it's been used by evolution deniers for years.

Now, if you want to discuss whether we should pay attention to a cleaner
environment and alternative energy sources to improve quality of life, we
have room to talk. Continuing to batter non-believers about the head trying
to force them to believe the AGW tripe is just as fruitless as the faithful
trying to convert an atheist.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've already
convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the world's scientists to
trick you, you are way too far gone.

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" wrote:

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)


Well said.


Dan

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any more
than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of the fallacy
of your belief in AGW.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________