Francis wrote stuff like 'How Diplomats Make War' in 1916 and told us of British and Russian Imperialism and 'balance of power' politics impoverishing us all - we can safely ignore him now we are both free of trivializing Marxism and driving Beamers! We may be unlikely rough- riders of the evangelistic right Chaz, but let's face it, the trinkets are just so nice. Over in the colonies from which you can claim passport right, the vile commies are swooning the masses with health care rights, so keep the musket trimmed, for the hoard will soon be at our freedom to consume Chinese plastic once more and steal the very carbon of life from our air. I read the IPCC report (916 pages) yesterday, as the corporate commies put taxis on double time and stocked the roads with anti-drink-driving jobsworths of the nanny-state, keeping me away from the public house of freedom. I have seen more convincing economic analysis, and as these gentlemen are know scientifically never to reach a conclusion, suggest we ring the sun with them and the IPCC scientists, measuring temperature at the poles before and after.
On 25 Dec, 23:38, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > I've not yet had the pleasure. Is Leslie Nielson any good? > > On Dec 25, 8:25 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've been reading Francis Nielson again of late - we might have a > > chance if we could throw over imperialism. > > > On 24 Dec, 00:54, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 3:08 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Merry Xmas - I'm off down the pub for the real low down on globular > > > > worming. > > > > globular worming,,,,, hic!! > > > > Have a good one! > > > > > On 23 Dec, 12:51, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I seem to remember there was a lot more CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere > > > > > once, and isn't the oxygen only there in sufficient quantities for us > > > > > because of very long-term build-up? It is, of course, because of the > > > > > ppm scale that the system may be at some threshold. We piss-ants, as > > > > > Lovelock reminds us, are unlikely to screw the planet, only our place > > > > > on it. I think it's likely the system is more complex than any of the > > > > > models and these are not adequate. We haven't examined the IPCC > > > > > reports, which are easily available, found what is being said about > > > > > the saturation argument and tested our understandings (not much) and > > > > > now have someone aboard who has thrown in an old Dilbert joke on > > > > > expansion into the fray. > > > > > If you ain't careful Chaz, you'll sound like one of those dreadful ex- > > > > > commies who write 'Darkness at Noon' whilst raping friends' wives, or > > > > > the child who has just realised Santa Claus is an abuser. I know just > > > > > what you mean though - pretty much everything put in front of us to > > > > > believe in turns to rat shit, yet we seem to queue up for more. > > > > > The IPCC should have opened the case up for world-wide public scrutiny > > > > > and put together some decent opportunities for pro and sceptic to get > > > > > their arguments out so we didn't end up with loads of old wives' tales > > > > > and Newsnight ninnies getting in the way of what was really being > > > > > said. It has failed completely, which I say with complete certainty > > > > > having only scanned most of the documentation! But it has - it hasn't > > > > > made the arguments plain, open and understandable. Nuclear, of > > > > > course, is little to put up with in comparison with a frying planet if > > > > > the small increases in ppm are actually so dangerous. Of course, if > > > > > the IPCC is right there are very traditional ways to sort it out. A > > > > > cull would work 'nicely'. > > > > > > On 22 Dec, 21:10, garshagu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > what about philosophising on the ozone layer perforations, in terms > > > > > > of > > > > > > holding responsible the great wobbling of the earth thus sometimes > > > > > > making the poles assume relative positions that resemble the > > > > > > imaginary > > > > > > equator thus making the poles to get hotter. What are the > > > > > > comparative > > > > > > temperatures of the poles at any point in time? Have they > > > > > > simulteneously gone hotter? Has the realtive ratio remained > > > > > > constant? > > > > > > Now, the earth, as other planetary bodies, have been spinning for > > > > > > millions of years and generating heat of some sort (or the entire > > > > > > atmospheric thing cascadding earth for instance), i stand to ber > > > > > > corrected: don't this cummulative effect make the pannets grow or > > > > > > expand and in expanding wont gases respectively contained there-in > > > > > > increase in quantity thus lending claim to the so called CO2 > > > > > > increase? > > > > > > After all physicists still believe in the big bang theory - which > > > > > > implies that things are getting bigger or larger or more volumnous. > > > > > > We > > > > > > need more experiments to prove or disprove that earth's size, or > > > > > > even > > > > > > sun's size, for instance is still what it was half a million years > > > > > > ago. > > > > > > Atovigba. > > > > > > > On Dec 20, 2:44 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant > > > > > > > greenhouse gas. > > > > > > > According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last > > > > > > > 100 > > > > > > > years. > > > > > > > Unless Carbon has some magical properties is seems unlikely that > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > tiny concentrations should cause any significant increase in > > > > > > > temperature, even-though it is a greenhouse gas. > > > > > > > Can any one help me find the scientific evidence? > > > > > > > I don't want to the political answer, nor the circumstantial > > > > > > > answer, > > > > > > > nor any sceptic/denier/doubter information as I have heard it all. > > > > > > > What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree > > > > > > > increase in temperature. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
