Global Warming The debbil made me do it

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what happened
when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up against
well-financed, fervent opposition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:36:27 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal wasted precious
bandwith with:

The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a
correlation-- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the
IPCC waffles on this point as well.

the jury is unlikely to be in until its too late to alter results

as usual a decision must be made on incomplete information
so instead of preceding in certainity we precede on estimated
risks

one estimated risks is the water supply of the western united
states depends on mountain snow packs persisting into summer
(yes we really do have snow in the mountains into june and even
july)

global warming will likely melt the snow early
invalidating the assumptions underlying water management
so that the western united states will likely need
a completely overhaul of the entire system and water allocation
which will be very expensive
perhaps bringing economic ruin to farmers and fishers
which will be very expensive

given the expected costs of doing nothing
what is the cost of doing something and preventing this?


The "jury" has been in for quite a while. Only the flat earthers are
unable to understand the science of human-caused climate change.
Ice cores dont lie. And neither do photograpic databases.

FYI

--
www.alternet.org

In article ,
Dan wrote:

As far as "expensive" -- that gets me thinking about the Gulf Coast,

makes me think about water and electricity in the western usa

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

On Mar 11, 4:52 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:



"Dan" wrote:

And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.

This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
et al. continue to give them time.

I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
counting them would be exhausting.

However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
eminences does not make one a liar

It does if you state something that is false. Like "the earth is 6000
years old." Is that a lie?

(see wikipedia entry under
"Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
observed phenomenon).


Oh come on. Science? Scientific authorities? It was church dogma.

Do you really think science is just like it was back then? If so, I
assume you refuse to use any technology, any modern medicine, etc.

There has been and continues to be evidence that
compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements.

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.

Dan

On Mar 11, 6:13 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:55 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:



"Dan" wrote:

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.

Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go.

But here's what we know:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.

There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years
or more.

Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is
a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks,
may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the
time. Party on dudes!

A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and
flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones.

How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the
planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.

How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting
run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it.

The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
-- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on
this point as well.


OK, so where is the CO2 coming from? Propose some other sources which
can be checked (and do a little searching -- you'll see they have
been).

So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic?

The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

Uh, no. That the CO2 increase is from humans is pretty definite. The
IPCC said there's a 95% chance the current warming is caused by
humans.


Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that
the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable
change to global and regional climates, there is no model that
adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term.
They may in fact be benign or even salutary.


Well, no, but why take the chance and experiment with our only
planet? It's much better to err on the side of caution. If a forest
fire is burning a quarter-mile from your house, do you say, "there's
no model that predicts the fire will burn my house or if it does, if
that will be a bad thing"?

Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great
doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years?

Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt.

As an aside:

It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments
appear when you're not sniping.

I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation.

Dan

On Mar 12, 3:26 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:55:54 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

"Dan" wrote:

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch
between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human
induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that
disaster is upon us.

Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models
go.

But here's what we know:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.

CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.

Not proven. Water provides feedbacks that swamp CO2.


Water's not up over 35% since the warming began. Water can be quickly
removed from the atmosphere to maintain an equilibrium (google
"rain"). There is no such quick removal mechanism for CO2.



There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand
years or more.

100 ppmv of a trace gas absorbing at 15u.


A trace of ricin can be fatal. Surely you're not arguing quantity is
all that matters.



Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That
is a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane
feedbacks, may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more
GHGs all the time. Party on dudes!

A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought
and flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural
zones.

How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what
the planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.

How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is
getting run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care
of it.

Save it for Halloween.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:afRBj.72445$yE1.22150@attbi_s21:

Well, goodie for Iowa, eh?

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007...global_warming.
html

I like how the "researchers" try to make climates "like Arkansas" or
"Texas" -- places people tend to retire to -- sound like hell.

If this is the worst thing we've got to worry about, all is well.


It's like satire, only scary.



Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.


Bertie

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else


Jay would have burned him at the stake as well. No extra charge.

bertie