The Writing is on the Wall

"William Asher" wrote in message
...
"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in
news
snip

I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change. Anyone who says this
is a moral issue and not a political one (Al Gore when winning his
part of an Oscar) is either a liar or an idiot. Having said that,
I'll
go with a reduction in CO2 emissions if it means reducing our
dependence on oil. Yeh well, you can see how the politics come into
play.

This isn't like plate tectonics, where the old guard dug in their
heels
and made life hell for Dietz and Hess even though what they proposed
was
a blindingly obvious truth. The "reputable scientists" who doubt the
role of CO2 in climate are more like Pete Duesberg, who, against the
mass of evidence arrayed against him, is still to this day convinced
AIDS is caused by an immune response to anal sex and amyl nitrate and
not HIV.

What does a molecular and cell biology scientist have to do with climate
change? Oh I get it, you present questionable science in an unrelated
matter as part of your (flawed) argument. You can't even claim guilt by
association.

Phil H

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in
:

snip
Sounds like a need to establish a basis for the disagreement. I'm
suggesting it should be the effect of CO2 levels on long term climate
change.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

http://tinyurl.com/37otds

http://tinyurl.com/35whlq

Don't noboday say "Duesberg."

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" wrote in message
...
"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in
:

snip
Sounds like a need to establish a basis for the disagreement. I'm
suggesting it should be the effect of CO2 levels on long term climate
change.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

http://tinyurl.com/37otds

http://tinyurl.com/35whlq

Don't noboday say "Duesberg."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

Phil H

On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
statement.

Out of how many thousand?

In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
universe). Some of them are very eminent smart people.
It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
It means rather that even people whose job it is to
remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
into an intellectual corner.

Ben

On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
heating.

This is factually incorrect. Early experiments
(Angstrom in 1900) led people to believe that CO2
absorption (not reflection) bands were saturated in
the atmospheric column. The problem is that the
interpretation extrapolates from a small absorbing
column at room temperature and pressure; but much
of the CO2 in the atmosphere is high up, colder and
lower temperature. In the 1950s, experiments and
theoretical calculations found that the CO2 absorption
in the atmosphere is not saturated; in the 1960s
the mechanism for possible CO2 effects became acceptable;
and in the 1970s people started to believe that there
was evidence for the effect in the historical record.
Please see:

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

So any reference that tells you that atmospheric CO2
is saturated and increasing concentration has no
forcing effect is either decades out of date or
deliberately misleading.

Ben

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
oups.com...

either it has a role or it doesn't. do you mean there are reputable
scientists that believe CO2 doesn't radiatively force the atmosphere ?
(Gee is that your scientific judgement at work?)

No, I mean that some believe CO2 is not a big player in the overall scheme
and change over the last few decades is too short a period to predict long
term trends. Here's a start......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

This is precisely WHY you're seeing so many "scientists" jumping on the
bandwagon for global warming. The hysteria is being orchestrated
specifically to hand increasing power to governments. And of course that
seems like a good idea to all good little socialists.

Phil Holman wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Lindzen doctors data.

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in message
. ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

Ah yes, the list of subjects for lynching by the leftists weirdos.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker -
there
is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
heating.

This is factually incorrect. Early experiments
(Angstrom in 1900) led people to believe that CO2
absorption (not reflection) bands were saturated in
the atmospheric column. The problem is that the
interpretation extrapolates from a small absorbing
column at room temperature and pressure; but much
of the CO2 in the atmosphere is high up, colder and
lower temperature.

Ahem, maybe you'd better explain that to all of the plants in this world.

On Feb 26, 9:12 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/02/26/AR200...

Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
Oregon's governor.

Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona have agreed to
develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
region.

The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative.

"With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
Group.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.

Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
addressing climate change."

The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
the gases, said Baumann.

The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
as acid rain components in the early 1990s.

In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
factories.

In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.

Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
said.

Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
surrounding states outside of the agreement.

The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
by 10 percent by 2019.

The weather is a perfect tool for scientists who use the media to get
attention. I pointed out
a good example with the hurricane hysteria of 2005:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/hurricane2.html

I just heard on the news today that there was the strongest Atlantic
hurricane in history, and that this year had a record number of
powerful hurricanes. In my constant quest to understand media
distortion, I immediately set out to understand what the hidden trick
was behind this alarming turn of events in the world climate.

Here is my conclusion: These hurricanes are classed according to their
wind speed which reaches its highest numbers when the hurricanes are
out in the ocean. But how do you measure 200+ kph winds out in the
open sea? As near as I can figure, you can't do it safely by boat or
airplane, so the only good way of tracking a hurricane is from a
satellite. Since the first weather satellites were launched 45 years
ago, this significantly reduces the period of observation of ocean
hurricanes. A further minute's research reveals that a complete system
of weather satellites was first established in 1975 with the GOES
project. In other words, recorded data on Atlantic hurricanes only
goes back 30 years. Since other climatic effects can have a period
extending decades, I conclude that there is insufficient historical
data do indicate a permanent change in global climate.

As a final remark, note that 30 years of data should be enough to
correlate hurricane speed on land with their maximum force over the
ocean which could therefore give realistic extrapolations as to the
maximum wind speed of hurricanes over the ocean for the recorded
period before satellite data. This would give a clearer understanding
of whether this year's hurricanes are truly exceptional.

-ilan

Back to ilanpi

Such hysteria caused much human suffering including the irrational
exodus from Houston, TX.