[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!
: > Scott Nudds wrote:
: > : > Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing due to man?
: > : >David Beorn does.
David Beorn wrote:
: I never said that - all I said was that it was not significant compared to
: the natural sources (you even quoted my statement below!). Certainly there
: is a contribution by man to the CO2 in the atmosphere - only a fool would
: say there is not (I realize that's what you think I am - so I'll save you
: the fuel for the "flame").
The key word here is "increasing". If you are in agreement that
atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, either it is increasing due to
man or due to natural processes. If you believe it is natural
processes, explain to us where the CO2 man is producing is going so that
it is not responsible for the increase, how that increase just happen to
mirror computed rates of human CO2 emission, how changes in isotopic
abundance of CO2 s consistent with human emissions, etc...
What natural processes do you know of that are increasing their rate
of CO2 emissions?
David Beorn wrote:
: Hardly - except that those who don't toe the line don't get published as
: often or as widely so the ones making outlandish conclusions don't look
: bad (or some reason).
Who do you suggest is behind this conspiracy that you are proposing?
Do they fly black helicopters? Are they part of some new world order?
David Beorn wrote:
: There was even a survey a while back about that
: and some other "widely held" beliefs that showed they were not so widely
: held - maybe someone has that source???
Yes there was, but no one seems to recall what the questions were or
what spin was placed in the answers. One thing about this "survey" is
certain, the results reported do not reflect the consensus opinion of
scientists.
David Beorn wrote:
: Exactly!!!! And THAT is what I dispute - the conclusion based on what
: evidence we have.
Given that scant few conclusions have been drawn, you have little to
complain about.
Scott Nudds quoted:
: > ---
: > "The probability that the temperature increase of the last century has
: > NOT been influenced by the greenhouse effect is less than one percent."
: > -Climatologists Richard Tol and Aart de Vos, Free University of
: > Amsterdam, A3
David Beorn wrote:
: And what is the probability that the temperature decreases of the last
: century has NOT been affected by something else (it' been an up and down
: cycle as far as I know - maybe we're on an upswing now).
Maybe? You express opinion without evidence. Faith. Faith in your
ignorance of the subject. If you have some evidence of a process at
work that is increasing temperatures, then present it. If you have some
explanation of how atmospheric temperatures will <NOT> increase as CO2
levels increase, then present it.
If on the other hand all you have is blind, ignorant, faith, then take
a hike, you don't belong here. You belong in alt.religion.
David Beorn wrote:
: Where is the hue
: and cry about the ice age that "was" coming 20 years ago???
There was no such "cry". You are living a fantasy. Please provide
references to an abundance of scientific articles proclaiming an
impending ice age.
I have seen dozens of people making the same claim as you. None have
been able to support their fantasy. I doubt that you will be any
different.
David Beorn wrote:
: This
: "scholar" quoted above may well be right but what does it really mean -
: does it mean man is at fault - he only says "the greenhouse effect"??
And here we are back to your initial fantasy for which you can provide
no substantiation.
David Beorn wrote:
: There would appear to be a CYCLE of temperature changes, "holes" in the
: ozone, etc. that we have not been able to pin to any phenomenon (at least
: not that I'm aware of) and we have people spewing this stuff in the name
: of science that is not (ultimately, yet) supported by the evidence.
And here again we see that the ignorance at work behind ozone hole
denialism is highly correlated to the ignorance at work behind global
warming denialism.
Your opinions are not based on science, they are based strictly on
blind, ignorant, faith. The term "ditto-head" comes to mind.
Curb use of carbon dioxide, scientists urge - July 15, 96
-------------------------------------------
Geneva - As arguments heat up between heavy industry and
environmentalist over greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are urging
countries to curb their use of carbon dioxide, considered one of the key
gases leading to global warming.
With one week to go before the International Climate Change Conference
ends, the fossil fuel industry has been trying to convince delegates from
150 nations that radical cuts in carbon dioxide emissions would lead to
economic disaster worldwide.
However, environmentalists warn climate change will cause catastrophic
natural disasters and have serious, widespread implications for human
health.
They want industrialized countries to commit themselves to 20% cuts in
carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) which comprises about 2,500 of the world's top
climate scientists, is trying to remain scientifically neutral and not
get drawn into a political debate.
But in the most controversial assessment to date, the latest IPCC report
provides strong evidence that "suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate."
OPEC countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Kuwait whose economies depend
on the sale of fossil fuels, have been most vigorous in disputing the
scientific evidence of global warming.
As part of the Convention on Climate Change, Canada and other
industrialized countries pledged to cut their emissions of carbon
dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Only Germany and the United
Kingdom have been living up to these commitments. Canada has been cited
by environmental organizations as one of the worst performing countries
in the world.
--
<---->
Follow-Ups:
References: