Everything you ever wanted to know about "climate change" (Fermilab lecture)

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by aways

None of the leftist hysterias of the past 50 years has come true, from Ehrlich's population bomb (where we'd all be starving by 2000), to the "coming ice age" in the mid 1970's, to the explosion of "heterosexual AIDS", to global warming (now climate change). It is precisely the fact that the climate change crowd has NOT made a convincing case, all the while assuring us that the "debate is over" that smacks of political motivation. And as for "no price being paid for assuming AGW is real... get real... there is a HUGE cost. I'm not prepared to destroy Western economies based on slim and questionable data in order to appease a group of enviro-leftists who have a grudge against capitalism and "Big Oil".

You do know you sound just like the 'don't look here - nothing is really happening' polluters of the 50s. A time when many scientists were pointing out that there were very real problems within the environment because of their actions (and of course there were those scientists that stated that it was just fine, that it was all smoke and mirrors, a hysterical reaction on the part of the scientific community) - And we are still cleaning up their messes...

(Oh - thanks to education and real research we didn't have an explosion of heterosexual AIDS here in the US, unlike they have in other parts of the world, some things haven't come true because we did catch them in time with sensible precautions, condom anyone?)

There is a cost to be paid, I never said that there wasn't - but, we can sensibly reduce carbons without destroying western civilization as we know it. Those same polluters said the same thing in the 60s and 70s and beyond when they were told to clean things up, and our economy wasn't destroyed, and you know, Dupont and the others are, as a whole, still doing pretty good... Our 'clean technology' was able to be exported throughout the world, plus we made money on that.

I think you are incorrect saying that all of those who want to curb carbon emissions are some sort of hysterical mob - they aren't. Many are asking to start small programs now, and move towards fewer carbon emissions.

We do have an increased CO2 situation - that isn't questionable - what is up in the air is what exactly does it mean for the future. Fixing the problems of decades of air and water pollution were far more expensive than it would have been to correct them early on.

You appear to be a gambler (along with a stereotyper aways) and you'll bet it all on red. How about hedging that bet a little?

[sammyg2]

Algore, the lying asshat who started this mess, was worth about $100 mil in 2001.
Now he's worth close to $1 billion, all because of his investments (and subsequent subsidies, grants, and investments in his companies by the gubmint).

Your tax dollars at work.

[aways]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

You do know you sound just like the 'don't look here - nothing is really happening' polluters of the 50s. A time when many scientists were pointing out that there were very real problems within the environment because of their actions (and of course there were those scientists that stated that it was just fine, that it was all smoke and mirrors, a hysterical reaction on the part of the scientific community) - And we are still cleaning up their messes...

(Oh - thanks to education and real research we didn't have an explosion of heterosexual AIDS here in the US, unlike they have in other parts of the world, some things haven't come true because we did catch them in time with sensible precautions, condom anyone?)

There is a cost to be paid, I never said that there wasn't - but, we can sensibly reduce carbons without destroying western civilization as we know it. Those same polluters said the same thing in the 60s and 70s and beyond when they were told to clean things up, and our economy wasn't destroyed, and you know, Dupont and the others are, as a whole, still doing pretty good... Our 'clean technology' was able to be exported throughout the world, plus we made money on that.

I think you are incorrect saying that all of those who want to curb carbon emissions are some sort of hysterical mob - they aren't. Many are asking to start small programs now, and move towards fewer carbon emissions.

We do have an increased CO2 situation - that isn't questionable - what is up in the air is what exactly does it mean for the future. Fixing the problems of decades of air and water pollution were far more expensive than it would have been to correct them early on.

You appear to be a gambler (along with a stereotyper aways) and you'll bet it all on red. How about hedging that bet a little?

The people behind the environmental movement are interested in shutting down western economies for their own political reasons. "Climate change" is just a convenient lie to further their agenda. Listen to the the 4:00-5:00 minute segment of the first video segment of the lecture, where it is spelled out quite clearly in with direct quotes from the perpetrators making this clear. If you still want to "believe" in climate change because it fits in with your anti-oil agenda, go ahead. But don't kid yourself it's not just a passing religious fad. Twenty years from now they'll have another bogey man, and the fact that none of the dire climate change predictions have come true will be conveniently forgotten. And as you know, it's already clear that their predictions are not coming true. The fact that the earth had NOT warmed over the past decade despite increases in CO2 is a bit of an embarrassment to them, as climategate made all too obvious. The fact is that CO2 is a WEAK greenhouse gas, and the IR lines are essentially saturated at these levels. Increased CO2 will not cause significant warming. So there is no immediate scientific reason to significantly curb the burning of fossil fuels. It's all political, and has been from the start.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by aways

The people behind the environmental movement are interested in shutting down western economies for their own political reasons. "Climate change" is just a convenient lie to further their agenda. Listen to the the 4:00-5:00 minute segment of the first video segment of the lecture, where it is spelled out quite clearly in with direct quotes from the perpetrators making this clear. If you still want to "believe" in climate change because it fits in with your anti-oil agenda, go ahead. But don't kid yourself it's not just a passing religious fad. Twenty years from now they'll have another bogey man, and the fact that none of the dire climate change predictions have come true will be conveniently forgotten. And as you know, it's already clear that their predictions are not coming true. The fact that the earth had NOT warmed over the past decade despite increases in CO2 is a bit of an embarrassment to them, as climategate made all too obvious. The fact is that CO2 is a WEAK greenhouse gas, and the IR lines are essentially saturated at these levels. Increased CO2 will not cause significant warming. So there is no immediate scientific reason to significantly curb the burning of fossil fuels. It's all political, and has been from the start.

Well, I am not anti oil - don't have a clue where you got that - other than you are stereotyping again aways.... I just understand that it is a somewhat limited resource, that is becoming more and more costly to obtain and use. I also can comprehend that there are much better solutions for some of our current energy needs than oil, and maybe we should keep oil for more important stuff - like 24 year old German cars

Don't assume aways.....

the truth is that the earth is continuing to warm -

DO - Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known

YOU - NOAA: Last decade was warmest, global warming 'undeniable'

WANT - Global Warming Greatest In Past Decade

MORE - Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows

The fact is that we don't know exactly what additional levels of CO2 will do to the environment - but you really would like to gamble everything on your throw of the dice -

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by aways

The people behind the environmental movement are interested in shutting down western economies for their own political reasons...

does that include H. Norman Schwarzkopf??

or who exactly?

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by aways

... The fact is that CO2 is a WEAK greenhouse gas, ... Increased CO2 will not cause significant warming. ...

not sure what you do with your PhD but posting things like this just get your other comments dismissed as unreliable

maybe you'd like to restate what you said

[RWebb]

just ran across this today...

A widely noted discrepancy between satellite-based and ground-based measurements of average global temperature does not call into question the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is warming up, according to a US National Research Council (NRC) panel.The panel includes researchers who in the past have argued that the lack of evidence for warming from data gathered by satellite-based equipment cast doubt on global warming.

Nature 403, 233 (20 January 2000

[aways]

Originally Posted by RWebb

not sure what you do with your PhD but posting things like this just get your other comments dismissed as unreliable

maybe you'd like to restate what you said

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, certainly when compared with water vapor. The predictions of warming by the alarmists invoke a complex (positive) feedback mechanism between CO2 increases and warming due to an increased contribution of water vapor. The fact that the warming has not come close to the predictions despite a significant increase in CO2 proves that we don't understand this feedback mechanism (it could even be negative, depending on the role and treatment of clouds). The models are failing to describe reality. And that should worry people who are truly interested in the science, not just in what social change we can get out of playing to fear and hysteria.

[RWebb]

ah, Jeez!!

Is carbon dioxide a weak green house gass? - Yahoo! Answers

[aways]

Originally Posted by RWebb

ah, Jeez!!

Is carbon dioxide a weak green house gass? - Yahoo! Answers

Yahoo answers? "green house gass"... That's pathetic. The first google result you dug up?

Try this:

"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas present in the Earth's atmosphere. "

"By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor because of its abundance and its extensive IR absorption features."

"Molecule for molecule, CO2 is less efficient than other greenhouse gases because its atmospheric concentration is high and hence its absorption bands are nearly saturated."

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is almost entirely due to its potential to cause a positive feedback (atmospheric forcing) increasing water vapor... Herein lies the controversy because the climate models are inconclusive. Wise up! And don't waste my time pretending that you understand this topic.

[cgarr]

Wait, Wait, Wait, I got it! CO2 causes more water vapor and that's the problem. Let Yahoo know.

Yea that sounds good, lets go with this one now.

[RWebb]

you are pathetic Alyn

stay aways from areas you know nothing about

[island911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

you are pathetic Alyn..

Yeah? How's that?

. . . I'm just not seeing it.

Seems that he served you plainly, and your only retort was to hit him with a (non-sequitur) personal dig.

Now go report yourself for personal attacks.

[pksystems]

wankers!!

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by island911

Yeah? How's that?

. . . I'm just not seeing it.

Seems that he served you plainly, ...

islet - I realize you have no scientific or engineering education whatsoever, and only wrap packages during Xmas at Dept. stores, but let me make this simple for you...

awanks is trying to make a molecule for molecule difference seem important and ignoring dwell time in the atmosphere AND the AMOUNT of EACH SUBSTANCE in the atmosphere.

now, he says he has a PhD in some physical science (tho he never says which one), so if that is true then he seems to be deliberately misleading people, which is reprehensible

I prefer to believe he just doesn't know what he is talking about, like you. That is less negative.



Oh BTW, I am SO SORRY I exposed your lack of knowledge earlier this week!! So you can quit wasting everyone's time with personal attacks in OT and elsewhere. I simply did not realize how fragile your small ego was. So I apologize for what must have been a devastating blow to you.

[aways]

Originally Posted by island911

Yeah? How's that?

. . . I'm just not seeing it.

Seems that he served you plainly, and your only retort was to hit him with a (non-sequitur) personal dig.

Now go report yourself for personal attacks.

Just try to ignore webby. I took the time to spell it out for him in my last post, but he either can't read it, or comprehend it. Sad. In my long professional career, it's rare that I've come across someone this thick. That's why 90%+ of his posts are one-line drive-bys with zero intellectual content. You've got to understand that all he brings is a BS (or maybe even an MS) in some limp-wristed science like ecology, or the equivalent. He probably started out seeking an advanced degree in a real science, but couldn't hack it, so he went down the dirt road and got some politicized pufta "science" degree. Afterward, instead of having "the stuff" to do fundamental research himself (or even to understand what others have done), he apparently spends his time on political activism with his toy science degree, i.e. "saving the planet" crap, putting roadblocks in the way of real people trying to do real things... GOOD NIGHT NOW!

[island911]

ignore webby!? ...but he's the poster-boy for the AGW believers. I mean, sure, we have the fat-boy Gore, and his comments on our Earth's core being "Millions of degrees" ..or making movies chalked full of all sorts of inconvenient fallacies; but we have to let the quire of true believers sing. --esp the one-line drive-by carolers, who insist that they are smarter than anyone w/o the proper parchment.

a side note: the vid's you attached, the guy hits this on the head. That is, the believers are constantly relying on, and promulgating, an appeal to authority. They insist they are right (and the science is settle) because ### of authorities say so. ...bundled w/ that AtA of course is; the "pay no attention to any authorities who say otherwise - they don't count. ...wankers. .."

Clearly the Parfessor Webbster can't argue his way out of a wet 100% post consumer product bag - and that's why he's annoying. ...and his drive-bys are frequent. But, he really does represent the true believers. (we have a LOT of them up here. They even stand on busy sidewalks asking passer-bys "do you have a minute for the environment?" --so pathetic.)

Originally Posted by RWebb

...
Oh BTW, I am SO SORRY I exposed your lack of knowledge earlier this week!! ..

? ... where's that?

Was it when I asked (after 20,000 smarmy posts) how to post an image? ...oh wait, that was you who hadn't figured out that toughy.

[island911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

well, he has made a number of contributions in his field

...
But saying crazy things does not help one's credibility. Things like:

...

2. CFCs don’t deplete the ozone layer

What's the diffusion rate to the upper atmosphere of a relatively heavy CFC molecule?

What's the diffusion rate, to the upper atmosphere, of man-made O₃?

How is it that the man-made O₃ doesn't get up there to replenish the ozone layer, but man made CFC do?

...and what about the magnetic field dynamics, and solar flares, which tend to accelerate regional (polar) destruction of the "ozone layer"?

Point is; just because you don't understand him, doesn't mean he suddenly has no credibility. --unless of course, your only argument is "the science is settled" and anyone who differs is no authority.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by a wankys

GOOD NIGHT NOW!

you should definitely get some sleep

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by island911

ignore webby!? ...but he's the poster-boy for the AGW believers. I mean, sure, we have the fat-boy Gore, and his comments on our Earth's core being "Millions of degrees" ..or making movies chalked full of all sorts of inconvenient fallacies; but we have to let the quire of true believers sing. --esp the one-line drive-by carolers, who insist that they are smarter than anyone w/o the proper parchment.

a side note: the vid's you attached, the guy hits this on the head. That is, the believers are constantly relying on, and promulgating, an appeal to authority. They insist they are right (and the science is settle) because ### of authorities say so. ...bundled w/ that AtA of course is; the "pay no attention to any authorities who say otherwise - they don't count. ...wankers. .."

Clearly the Parfessor Webbster can't argue his way out of a wet 100% post consumer product bag - and that's why he's annoying. ...and his drive-bys are frequent. But, he really does represent the true believers. (we have a LOT of them up here. They even stand on busy sidewalks asking passer-bys "do you have a minute for the environment?" --so pathetic.)


? ... where's that?

Was it when I asked (after 20,000 smarmy posts) how to post an image? ...oh wait, that was you who hadn't figured out that toughy.

I just want to preserve this ignorant gibberish so islet can't go back later and delete it