If it isn’t CO2 as a 'causer' it must be something else. I expect that it is some combination of SOI, solar wind, cosmic rays, UV, disturbances in the earth's magnetic field, relative humidity (propensity to form clouds), ocean turn-over and possibly things not yet discovered, all of which still needs to be sorted out. Since average global temperature is sensitive to clouds, I suspect that the combination acts as a catalyst for cloud formation which then drives average global temperature. My guess is the CO2 does factor into the equation. What I'd like is access to what is being worked on before the jerkoffs get in the way. It would be interesting to examine the protocols of how people generally and politicians reach conclusions on matters like this that are at least potentially decidable by science.
On 29 Dec 2009, 10:43, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I felt obliged to read the IPCC - though nearly gave up in the first > pages of UN-style wank of names and sleazy acknowledgements - familiar > from my own ventures under such sponsorship. I ghost-edited a book on > domestic violence last year and could only conclude none of the > academics have any real idea what it is about or how useless our > bureaucracies are. No doubt 'White Ribbon' will turn up at 2 a.m. > midweek on Channel 4. > New Scientist tells us we shouldn't listen to idiots who have spent a > few hours surfing and take more note of the scientific journals. As > they say this, rows erupt over all kinds of 'scientists' refusing (on > all sides) to publish the actual evidence and methodologies and > accusations of trained people not being able to read spectrographs are > all over and they allow the net to be dominated by the barmy. Try > getting to a scientific journal without a university pass. Channel 4 > has Baldrick trying to make sense of it for us. Now the Black Death > is down to climate change, rather supporting my notion it is about an > evolutionary cull. What bliss it is to know the postmodern is just an > eddy of crap from a distant decadence. > > On 27 Dec, 10:47, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It Sounds like this Francis kiddy is as relevant now as ever he was, > > and maybe even Marx too. > > I have to admit that I am not "free of driving" Beamers, but I am > > nicely cynical. > > My partner and I did our usual Xmas escape yesterday and saw 2 films > > back to back at Brighton's "art" cinema. "White ribbon" was a pretty > > damn shocking picture of a pre-WW1 `German village replete with local > > Protestant type pastor - tying his teenage boy's hands at night so he > > doesn't wank, the Baron whose wife does not understand him, the local > > doctor fucking the mid-wife and fingering his own daughter. And a > > series of mysterious tragedies and accidents. A beautiful picture of > > the "good old days" - a society than was in need of a damn good clean > > out. I was a good reminder of what Marx was reacting to. If you like a > > good movie I recommend it. > > The other one was Nowhere Boy, about Lennon's early life in Liverpool, > > pushed and pulled from auntie Mimi to Mummy Julia, and all the angst > > that went with it. It occurred to me that these days every third child > > has a bigger bagful of shit to deal with, and all they get is a chance > > to go on the Jeremy Kyle Show - if they are lucky. I enjoyed the film > > but was glad to has seen it before "White RIbbon" as his petty > > bourgeois teenage angst would have been less meaningful after the > > repressive German village. > > I suppose we can be thankful that we can wank ourselves silly without > > fear of death by nervous exhaustion; don't have to wait a year before > > our future father in-law gives his final nod; work ourselves to death > > for the Baron and on his whim loose our jobs.... EH wait a minute - > > same shit, different century. > > > I'm glad you so enjoyed the Malthusian IPCC report! I think the cinema > > was a better choice. > > > On Dec 26, 1:35 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
