Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about
them. - Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
email.
I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm
reading at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of
the University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any
genuine effect anyway ... :-)
Arfa
I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing
over around UK coasts.
**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles
were published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other
populist crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to
the facts. Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very
serious problem of CO2 being a major influence in global
warming.
Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.
**Points:
* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between
9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.
To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water
vapor.
**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn
a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it.
And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus
exacerbating the effect.
As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW.
It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy
theorist.
**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well,
science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of.
BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia
*before* the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money
they've been pulling in for their climate research.
**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?
I wasn't aware there was a difference?
The old saying goes.
"Birds of a feather flock together"
**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged,
lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US
Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US
citizen is the same? Is that your contention?
It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.
**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans,
in general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in
my own nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small
number of intelligent people and a large number somewhere between
the two. The US, however, is unique in that the majority of voters
managed to elect the dumbest religious nutter they could find.
TWICE! That fact does not suggest that the US voting public has much
common-sense.
Actually GWB's grades in college were about the same as Kerry's.
**Points:
* I have no idea who "Kerry" is.
* Dubya has a record of lying and cheating over his entire life.
* Dubya was, when he was President, acting in a manner that conveyed him to
be a moron.
* Dubya was a known drug taker. That may have caused the damage to his brain
during his adult life.
And I
wouldn't call Bush a "religious nutter",
**He _IS_ a religious nutter. That much is on record.
that's betraying *your*
biases.
**Well, no. Anyone who places their faith in the supernatural is a religious
nutter.
The US tends to be more religious than Europe. Speaking of
religious nutters, BTW, how's that large Muslim population working out
for you?
**Perhaps I did not make myself clear: ANYONE who places their faith in the
supernatural, is a religious nutter. Muslim, Jew, Christian or Hindu, it
makes no difference.
Where do you base your information from?
**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete
moron in the Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the
ficus had won.
Did you actually *read* some of the CRU emails. The ones where they
were discussing how to subvert peer review perhaps?
**I did. Heads need to roll over such corrupt behaviour.
Real scientists would release their data and their methods for review
by others. They don't, other emails discussed how to circumvent FOI
requests. It appears that their "science* cannot stand up to review,
by anyone except the "in crowd".
**Nonsense. The peer-review process may not be perfect. It is, however,
extremely robust and better than any other process we have at present. It is
certainly superior to the process used by the fossil fuel lobby.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au