-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:09:49 -0500,
Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:
>
>> Anthropogenic Global warming is bullshit, this crap is isolated cases of
>> criminal activity, might as well point to the illegal drug trade as a
>> reason to burn Glaxo down.
>
> Actually, Jim, it is not bullshit. The effect is significant, and it
> has nothing to do with illegal activities. The simple fact is that the
> amount of compounds spilled into the air due to the activities of
> civilization is causing climate change.
>
No that's a simple assertion that fails to meet the scientific methdd.
> There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
> climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
> work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
> no matter how you look at it.
>
No, some of the claims are 2deg F, in actual fact, the *observed* rise
in temp since 1900, is on the order of 0.7degC (about 1.1degF) and most
of that, (0.5C) was before 1945. Our peak global temp since 1900, was in
1998, according to the climatologists, due to the el Nino that year.
AGW is a failed theory that hangs on only due to political pressure and
people who don't actually read the studies they quote.
1) Rises in CO2 presence in the atmosphere *lags* rising temp by nearly
a milennia
2) The earth has been *far* warmer in the recent past, as recently as
the medieval warming period in fact, and somehow, the polar bears
survived. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd that the polar bears are
doomed 'cause they can't handle the heat!
3) Yeas, arctic ice sheets have been melting and losing ice mass.
However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.
4) AGW ignores the energy input of that great big glowing ball in the
sky.
5) The famous "hockey stick" chart is big slash of misinformation, by
chosing the starting point carefully, and the scale, you can't tell that
the period before the chart starts was a cooling trend, "depresing"
temps, and the scale prevents you from seeing that the temps lag
atmospheric C02 levels by 800 years.
It goes on and on.
The earths measured temp has increased about 0.7degC since 1900, an
increase that is neither large, nor particularly remarkable.
Solar output in the last few decades has increased by approx
1.1W/m^2, the same amount the climate models claim is responcible for
what warming we have been seeing.
> And just wait until normal petroleum production becomes so expensive
> that we start going to much dirtier means of squeezing energy from the
> decay of the past.
>
non-sequitur. Even if AGW were a proven hypothesis, what effect would
that have on petroleum prices? We don't rely on temps, humidity or such
to extract the hydrocarbons. They're there, we just dig them out.
> I would agree though, that the thing that will wipe out humanity will
> come from underground, from the sun, or from the asteroid belt. Ha ha
> ha ha ha ha! So long, suckers!
>
? this is how you support your theories?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHSe71d90bcYOAWPYRAjjRAKDb7UDf6khicqQbiD00xni6J0oBBACeMI/v
DZz/VPQ8wxC7SC8wJhhIpYA=
=F4QG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
|
|
