On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
My bad...for some reason I thought you seemed to harp on no changes for 10 years. > > > > > 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. > No, I am not. 10 years or 17..still a very short period of time when these cycles are 100's of thousands of years old. > > > > > > 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? > What 'side' am I on Sam? Are you bringing politics into this? What am I looking for? A way to reduce global pollution. Not simple, I understand, but I always say you should dream big. > > > > 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. > That is the way it comes across, yes. As for 'no thoughts', I put a lot of thought into my responses on this thread. Sucks you cannot, or will not, see that. > > > > 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? > I want to reduce global pollution. Again, I am not sure of the best way to achieve that, but I do not think 'cap & trade' is the way to do it - 'cap & trade' reminds me of the old 'shell game' > > > 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. > Again, why are you bringing politics into this? I never once mentioned anything political in any of my responses. As noted above, not a fan of 'cap & trade' and, for the most part, I think Gore is an ignorant blowhard. I think pumping crap into the atmosphere is bad for the planet and would love to see us, as a species, not a nation, take reasonable steps to limit the pollution, yet, you seem to see me as a 'global warming' nut. Not much more I can do to show I am not. I guess since global warming proponents want to reduce pollution you see me as the same..who knows. > > > > > 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. > > Because maybe there is more to be done. -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/386/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:367133 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
