You can prove that CO2 is a GH gas in the kitchen, as well as many other common gases. But you need a physics lab to be able to measure the tiny amounts involved to get an accurate appraisal. As for global temperatures- we have no reliable data over a long enough term to be able to make any accurate statements. If the earth had an arse-hole, we could stick a thermometer into it. (maybe there is an orifice in Glasgow?) Sadly there is not. The big panic graph: the "hockey-stick" is a mishmash of proxy data and weather station data. The actual global warming evidence or around 1 degree is within normal experimental error parameters. Where do you go from there?
On Jan 5, 2:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
