On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 17 > > > > 17? Then why do you keep saying 10? Either way, it is still not even a > blink of the eye when compared to how long some of these cycles last. > I never said 10. > > If you go back past 1880 then this particular warming cycle is cyclical > and > > not extraordinary. > > > > I understand that. I thought I made that clear, but maybe not. My bad. > > Your are changing the range to fit your needs. > > I won't argue over which one 'lags' as it is difficult to tell with any > certainty from this graph. > > However, as for your assertion that CO2 levels are lower now than 100K & > 300K years ago, you are wrong. Take a closer look. The red line (the CO2) > is higher now than at any other time that we can tell. The highest in the > past (about 330k years ago) was just over 300 ppmv, on the far right of the > graph it is almost at 380 ppmv - lets call it 360 ppmv. Last time I > checked, 360 is higher than 300. > > Not according to Hansen's chart. > > > > By closing "cleaner fuel burning factories" in the US so China and India > > can do the manufacturing in "dirty" is foolish. Look at the US CO2 > > emissions, they went way down without cap-n-trade laws yet those other > > countries CO2 skyrocketed. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the clean > > factories open? > > > > Yep, it would. Not sure where you got the idea I thought otherwise > considering what followed in my reply. > > So what is your issue? Do you even realize the side your on requires the US to close most of it's factories? And cap-n-trade excludes China and India making the entire exercise pointless? What are you looking for? > That's what the head of the IPCC said. So much for science. > I think it is better than your position: 'nothing bad is happening yet, so > screw it, lets keep polluting the planet until something bad does happen, > then we will deal with..if we can.' > > Wow, is that really what you think I said? You're now arguning like Larry, no thoughts, just blather. > CO2 levels are higher than they ever have been that we can tell. No one > knows with any certainty what will happen. You really think the best course > of action is to do nothing and hope you are right? I would rather we do > something and hope we are wrong. Everyone wins then...including the planet. > What do you want to do? Build more dirty factories in Asia? What exactly is your solution? > And error you will. > > > I hope that the climate change proponents are wrong and that all the crap > we pump into the atmosphere will have no effect on the planet at all. I > think it best if we plan for the worst, while hoping for the best. > > Again, the US refused to join Kyoto and we have lowered our emissions more than Kyoto required. What exactly are you arguing we do? Al Gore want's to sell carbon rights and many want to tax you for breathing. This will not help anything, it will just make the Church of Warming leaders wealthier. You're fighting for that and nothing else. > What harm does reducing pollution do? I cannot think of a single con > against it, only pros. > > We have reduced pollution way more than required. Yet we still talk about this. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:367127 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
