Han wrote:

Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.
And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my
life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.

Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.

And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2
may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend -
Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more
untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like
Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.

Adapt, overcome, continue.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:43:39 -0500, "HeyBub"
And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2
may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend -
Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more
untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like
Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.

More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that
growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are
experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.

On 19 Jul 2012 11:41:45 GMT, Han wrote:

Richard wrote in news:BL-dnb_92OMd-
:

On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

We'll be mining asteroids for the mierals pretty soon, and all (ahem)
pollution will occur outside Earth's atmosphere.

Solar steel smelting in space. Super!

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 19 Jul 2012 11:51:35 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 07/18/2012 02:49 PM, Han wrote:
Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global
warming is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes
our increasing CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor
effect here. That's the perception I speak of.

And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
follows warming.

Rightio! The books I read show that it follows warming. This means,
to those of you out in Rio Linda and you liberal folks, that the CO2
did not cause the warming. It's an -effect- of said warming.

Yebbut ...

Wobble or changes in earth's orbit as well as change sin the sun's output
lead to changes in absorbed energy of the earth. That warming can
release stored CO2 (or methane). Then the released greenhouse gases
exacerbate the warming trends.

Theoretically. The politically sensitive liberal groups of
"scientists" endorse it, but it has not yet been proven to real
scientists. Solar output can be tracked. And if warming can release
stored CO2, why is man being blamed for it, hmmm? There goes your
anthropogenicity. (new word?


So the primary effect (orbital change-
induced warming) might have been much smaller than the amplified effects
due to greenhouse gases. But I'm just a retired scientist, and never
studied climatology at the high end.

You're a scientist, yet you do not question these theories and ask for
proof?

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 19 Jul 2012 11:46:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows CO2
when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That "science"
has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat island"
thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are profiting
from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science" to be
concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least as
skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing, absolutely
nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are generating CO2 by
burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to be logical to conclude
that that CO2 is at least contributing to the roughly doubled quantity of
CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2 could be at least one factor in
the global warming process.

Which is why I cannot fathom that the greenies aren't all over coal
production. It's the single worst offender in the clean air scene.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 19 Jul 2012 11:40:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger
hurricanes because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that
better???


Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of their
yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better? Maybe the
answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below sea level.
I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in New Orleans
who were warned generation after generation to get the F#@k out of the
area because there are hurricanes every year. That's a big f-n "DUH!"
in anyone's book except those who think other people and the
government is responsible for solving their own problems.

When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me that
it's not where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

Indeed. There is Holland. Where they (mostly, but not always) manage to
keep the water where it is useful. Look up Wageningen on a map. It is
more or less in the middle of the country, on an arm of the Rhine. Where
I grew up the elevation was 66ft above normalized sealevel, at the foot
of Wageningen Mountain (el 166ft, no kidding!). A lot is being spent,
and has been spent to keep water in place, and it is really not unusual
to see ships/boats come by at higher levels than the land. Years ago
there was danger of flooding from exceptionally high river water levels,
and some areas were flooded (can't find reference right away). My Dad
inquired what would happen if the Rhine dike would fail, and was informed
that much of Wageningen would get at least wet feet, if not more.
However the flood would stop some 150 yards from his house ...

Wageningen will celebrate 750 years as a "city" next June ...

No thanks. I'd sooner live in NOLA than Holland. Neither is bloody likely.

On 19 Jul 2012 11:41:45 GMT, Han wrote:

Richard wrote in news:BL-dnb_92OMd-
:

On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

We'll be mining asteroids for the mierals pretty soon, and all (ahem)
pollution will occur outside Earth's atmosphere.

OMG, polluting other worlds?! Shipping jobs to other planets?! The greenies
and other Democrats aren't going to like that, at all!

On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2
:

On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global warming),
a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would be a good thing.

That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If there is
going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of a summertime
reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains before spring is
finished).

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry about
that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 19 Jul 2012 11:46:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows CO2
when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That "science"
has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat island"
thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are profiting
from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science" to be
concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least as
skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing, absolutely
nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are generating CO2 by
burning wood and fossil fuels.

So what?!

It seems to me to be logical to conclude
that that CO2 is at least contributing to the roughly doubled quantity of
CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2 could be at least one factor in
the global warming process.

No, it's not logical to conclude anything of the kind. You take it as faith;
i.e. religion.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:49:02 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:43:39 -0500, "HeyBub"
And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2
may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend -
Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more
untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like
Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.

More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that
growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are
experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.

Your proof that they won't?

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:18:11 -0400, "
More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that
growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are
experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.

Your proof that they won't?

Proof? It's happening right now in front of you. Sustainable water
levels are disappearing in many places that had previously lush
fertile soil.

My proof is plain common sense, something you continually appear to be
lacking in large quantities.

HeyBub wrote:

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:37:57 -0500, Leon wrote:

Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger hurricanes
because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that better???

Quick! Bring back the smog!

Thanks for my daily laugh, Leon :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:49:37 +0000, Han wrote:

It isn't a question whether global warming is happening, it is. The
problem is whether one believes our increasing CO2 conetent of the
atmosphere has a major or a minor effect here. That's the perception I
speak of.

Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this
group :-).

As I've pointed out, whether or not the increase in CO2 is the major
factor in warming, there's little dispute that it is a major factor in
ocean acidification. If the base of the global food chain is disrupted,
we won't care how warm it gets!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:04:20 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

it has not yet been proven to real scientists.

"real scientists" i.e. those who agree with Larry J :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this
group :-).
snip
---------------------------------
You buy them books, they eat the covers.

Lew

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this
group :-).

As I've pointed out, whether or not the increase in CO2 is the major
factor in warming, there's little dispute that it is a major factor
in
ocean acidification. If the base of the global food chain is
disrupted,
we won't care how warm it gets!
------------------------------------
You buy them books, they are still eating the covers.

Lew

On 7/19/2012 6:41 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in news:BL-dnb_92OMd-
:

On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

We'll be mining asteroids for the mierals pretty soon, and all (ahem)
pollution will occur outside Earth's atmosphere.



Now we won't.
We don't do space any more. It's too expensive.
And besides, the environmental impact of building and launching
spacecraft wasn't good for out planet (or so say the greens).

Bottom line is simply this... there is no technical solution to
such a problem, other than reducing the population radically.
Nobody is going to volunteer to do that. Certainly not Al Gore.

The "obvious" conclusions that people have come up with reflect
serious framing errors (on both sides, I may add).

Comparing events of the last 10, 50, 100 years, when the patterns
have run for hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of years is
always going to be misleading.

This is not about science. It's purely politics.



For what it's worth...

RIchard

On 7/19/2012 8:04 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 19 Jul 2012 11:51:35 GMT, wrote:

Larry wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 07/18/2012 02:49 PM, Han wrote:
Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global
warming is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes
our increasing CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor
effect here. That's the perception I speak of.

And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
follows warming.

Rightio! The books I read show that it follows warming. This means,
to those of you out in Rio Linda and you liberal folks, that the CO2
did not cause the warming. It's an -effect- of said warming.

Yebbut ...

Wobble or changes in earth's orbit as well as change sin the sun's output
lead to changes in absorbed energy of the earth. That warming can
release stored CO2 (or methane). Then the released greenhouse gases
exacerbate the warming trends.

Theoretically. The politically sensitive liberal groups of
"scientists" endorse it, but it has not yet been proven to real
scientists. Solar output can be tracked. And if warming can release
stored CO2, why is man being blamed for it, hmmm? There goes your
anthropogenicity. (new word?


So the primary effect (orbital change-
induced warming) might have been much smaller than the amplified effects
due to greenhouse gases. But I'm just a retired scientist, and never
studied climatology at the high end.

You're a scientist, yet you do not question these theories and ask for
proof?

--

Larry, theories are just exactly that. Theories.

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.


Richard

" wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:40:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere
allows more sun light to reach the surface of the earth???
Stronger hurricanes because there is more warming of the oceans.
How is that better???


Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of
their yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better?
Maybe the answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below
sea level. I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in
New Orleans who were warned generation after generation to get the
F#@k out of the area because there are hurricanes every year. That's
a big f-n "DUH!" in anyone's book except those who think other
people and the government is responsible for solving their own
problems.

When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me
that it's not where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

Indeed. There is Holland. Where they (mostly, but not always) manage
to keep the water where it is useful. Look up Wageningen on a map.
It is more or less in the middle of the country, on an arm of the
Rhine. Where I grew up the elevation was 66ft above normalized
sealevel, at the foot of Wageningen Mountain (el 166ft, no kidding!).
A lot is being spent, and has been spent to keep water in place, and
it is really not unusual to see ships/boats come by at higher levels
than the land. Years ago there was danger of flooding from
exceptionally high river water levels, and some areas were flooded
(can't find reference right away). My Dad inquired what would happen
if the Rhine dike would fail, and was informed that much of Wageningen
would get at least wet feet, if not more. However the flood would
stop some 150 yards from his house ...

Wageningen will celebrate 750 years as a "city" next June ...

No thanks. I'd sooner live in NOLA than Holland. Neither is bloody
likely.

LOL
Neither is likely for me as well, but I'd rather visit Holland than NOLA
....
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:46:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows
CO2 when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That
"science" has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat
island" thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are
profiting from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science"
to be concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to be
logical to conclude that that CO2 is at least contributing to the
roughly doubled quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2
could be at least one factor in the global warming process.

Which is why I cannot fathom that the greenies aren't all over coal
production. It's the single worst offender in the clean air scene.

Well, they are. Production AND burning.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:46:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows
CO2 when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That
"science" has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat
island" thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are
profiting from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science"
to be concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels.

So what?!

It seems to me to be logical to conclude
that that CO2 is at least contributing to the roughly doubled quantity
of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2 could be at least one
factor in the global warming process.

No, it's not logical to conclude anything of the kind. You take it as
faith; i.e. religion.

Sorry, I don't do faith (others may do as they want). But I can read
English and separate most facts from most fiction. I do cry wolf ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Somebody wrote:

Which is why I cannot fathom that the greenies aren't all over coal
production. It's the single worst offender in the clean air scene.
----------------------------------
The market is taking care of that.

N/G is about 1/2 the cost of coal.

Lew

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:04:20 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

it has not yet been proven to real scientists.

"real scientists" i.e. those who agree with Larry J :-).

He's not alone in that here - there are plenty of pseudo scientists here who
like to throw that phrase around. They talk about science, "real" science,
etc. all of the time. It only takes a quick archive look to see it.

--

-Mike-

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5008373f$0$1562
:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this
group :-).

As I've pointed out, whether or not the increase in CO2 is the major
factor in warming, there's little dispute that it is a major factor
in
ocean acidification. If the base of the global food chain is
disrupted,
we won't care how warm it gets!
------------------------------------
You buy them books, they are still eating the covers.

Lew

Lew, English is my second language, can you explain what you mean in
simpler language?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global
warming), a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would
be a good thing.

That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If
there is going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of
a summertime reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains
before spring is finished).

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry about
that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

I worry about that too, Larry. OTOH, that is an engineering and
regulation problem. It can be done safely, I believe. But there needs
to be oversight and punishment in case things go wrong. The main things
are 4-fold (I'm a biochemist so I have absolutely no standing): First,
the borehole should be warranteed to be free of defects, with the
companies in charge responsible to the extent that they have to prove
they are not responsible, rather than the "government" needing to prove
they are. Second, the waste should be cleaned up and /properly/ disposed
of. Again same conditions. Third, the fact that the water supply in the
area was fine before fracking proves that fracking was responsible for it
being fouled (if so) after fracking started, and again, same conditions.
Fourth, any earthquakes and damage from them are the direct
responsibility of the fracking companies.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
awesome ...

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.

Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.

And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Adapt, overcome, continue.

Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference that
it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2 produced
by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:bb81f$50081f8a
:

HeyBub wrote:

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

Quick, someone with a remedy for black flies?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:50084358$0$1243
:

Somebody wrote:

Which is why I cannot fathom that the greenies aren't all over coal
production. It's the single worst offender in the clean air scene.
----------------------------------
The market is taking care of that.

N/G is about 1/2 the cost of coal.

Lew

For the moment. There is a glut now, in part because of the mild winter.
When supply and demand get into more of an equilibrium, nat gas prices will
go up, and coal will come down. Although I don't mind cheap natural gas
....
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 19 Jul 2012 17:13:34 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:40:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere
allows more sun light to reach the surface of the earth???
Stronger hurricanes because there is more warming of the oceans.
How is that better???


Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of
their yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better?
Maybe the answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below
sea level. I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in
New Orleans who were warned generation after generation to get the
F#@k out of the area because there are hurricanes every year. That's
a big f-n "DUH!" in anyone's book except those who think other
people and the government is responsible for solving their own
problems.

When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me
that it's not where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

Indeed. There is Holland. Where they (mostly, but not always) manage
to keep the water where it is useful. Look up Wageningen on a map.
It is more or less in the middle of the country, on an arm of the
Rhine. Where I grew up the elevation was 66ft above normalized
sealevel, at the foot of Wageningen Mountain (el 166ft, no kidding!).
A lot is being spent, and has been spent to keep water in place, and
it is really not unusual to see ships/boats come by at higher levels
than the land. Years ago there was danger of flooding from
exceptionally high river water levels, and some areas were flooded
(can't find reference right away). My Dad inquired what would happen
if the Rhine dike would fail, and was informed that much of Wageningen
would get at least wet feet, if not more. However the flood would
stop some 150 yards from his house ...

Wageningen will celebrate 750 years as a "city" next June ...

No thanks. I'd sooner live in NOLA than Holland. Neither is bloody
likely.

LOL
Neither is likely for me as well, but I'd rather visit Holland than NOLA

Sorry, Han, I'm not into dykes.

On 19 Jul 2012 17:17:34 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:46:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows
CO2 when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That
"science" has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat
island" thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are
profiting from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science"
to be concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels.

So what?!

It seems to me to be logical to conclude
that that CO2 is at least contributing to the roughly doubled quantity
of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2 could be at least one
factor in the global warming process.

No, it's not logical to conclude anything of the kind. You take it as
faith; i.e. religion.

Sorry, I don't do faith (others may do as they want).

Oh, but you do. Worse then the most devout Christain, you won't admit it to
yourself.

But I can read
English and separate most facts from most fiction. I do cry wolf ...

Which causes people to laugh at you.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:53:34 -0500, Richard wrote:

On 7/19/2012 8:04 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 19 Jul 2012 11:51:35 GMT, wrote:

Larry wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 07/18/2012 02:49 PM, Han wrote:
Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global
warming is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes
our increasing CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor
effect here. That's the perception I speak of.

And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
follows warming.

Rightio! The books I read show that it follows warming. This means,
to those of you out in Rio Linda and you liberal folks, that the CO2
did not cause the warming. It's an -effect- of said warming.

Yebbut ...

Wobble or changes in earth's orbit as well as change sin the sun's output
lead to changes in absorbed energy of the earth. That warming can
release stored CO2 (or methane). Then the released greenhouse gases
exacerbate the warming trends.

Theoretically. The politically sensitive liberal groups of
"scientists" endorse it, but it has not yet been proven to real
scientists. Solar output can be tracked. And if warming can release
stored CO2, why is man being blamed for it, hmmm? There goes your
anthropogenicity. (new word?


So the primary effect (orbital change-
induced warming) might have been much smaller than the amplified effects
due to greenhouse gases. But I'm just a retired scientist, and never
studied climatology at the high end.

You're a scientist, yet you do not question these theories and ask for
proof?

--

Larry, theories are just exactly that. Theories.

"Theory" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.

No, they try to disprove a "hypothesis". When they can't (for some time and
effort spent) it may become a "theory".

Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

Sure, but a disproof is often an expansion of the hypothesis. Newton wasn't
wrong but Einstein expanded his theory.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

Worse; simulation is being offered as reality.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Anything with "science" in its name, isn't.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:47:51 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:18:11 -0400, "
More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that
growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are
experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.

Your proof that they won't?

Proof? It's happening right now in front of you. Sustainable water
levels are disappearing in many places that had previously lush
fertile soil.

The government does some dumb things, like giving away "free" water to farm
unfarmable land. Sure.

My proof is plain common sense, something you continually appear to be
lacking in large quantities.

Your "common sense" is nonsense.

On 19 Jul 2012 17:51:49 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:bb81f$50081f8a
:

HeyBub wrote:

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

Quick, someone with a remedy for black flies?

Winter.

On 7/19/2012 12:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sorry, Han, I'm not into dykes.

Well, dykes probably don't want you into them anyway.

On 7/19/2012 1:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Larry, theories are just exactly that. Theories.

"Theory" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.

No, they try to disprove a "hypothesis". When they can't (for some time and
effort spent) it may become a "theory".

Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

Sure, but a disproof is often an expansion of the hypothesis. Newton wasn't
wrong but Einstein expanded his theory.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

Worse; simulation is being offered as reality.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Anything with "science" in its name, isn't.


Yeah, I didn't do that quite right.
But I hope the jist of it remains.

And you are smack on about simulations being offered as anything by
simulation.

"Han" wrote:

Lew, English is my second language, can you explain what you mean in
simpler language?

------------------------------
If you buy somebody a book and instead of reading it they eat the
book's cover, there is not much point in buying that person a book in
the first place.

Same can be said for trying to explain an idea to some folks.

Lew

Just Wondering wrote in news:500863cd$0$20544$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

On 7/19/2012 12:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sorry, Han, I'm not into dykes.

Well, dykes probably don't want you into them anyway.

That's one answer. Another is that dykes are useful to keep your feet dry.
And dykes usually have roads on them, great for bicycling, with good views
of the land around. Driving a car needs to use a small car, oherwise
you'll be off the road rather soon.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/18/2012 8:44 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

Me too, the greenies seem to think that because there is no pollution
coming out of the tail pipe that there is no pollution.

On 7/19/2012 3:09 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in news:500863cd$0$20544$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

On 7/19/2012 12:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sorry, Han, I'm not into dykes.
Well, dykes probably don't want you into them anyway.
That's one answer. Another is that dykes are useful to keep your feet dry.
And dykes usually have roads on them, great for bicycling, with good views
of the land around. Driving a car needs to use a small car, oherwise
you'll be off the road rather soon.

Are you ignoring the pun, or did you enjoy the breeze as it whooshed
over your head?