On 1/17/2013 7:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona
<agocor...@gmail.com <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
You have to prove that the CO2 is the main ingredient of global
warming. Not me.
Ok. So Greenhouse effect is "alarmist fantasy" to you. This makes
But it is not. It is water vapor by orders of magnitude. And the
water vapor concentration, and the clouds depends on cosmic rays,
and cosmic rays depend on solar activity and the variation on the
earth orbit. The hockey stick (false) is of temperatures. And
temperatures are falling now, like were falling in the 70s. The
most likely evolution is towards a new ice age, as you can see
clearly in the graphic.
CO2 do no predict increase of temperatures, it is just
the contrary You can verify that in the graphic. increase of
temperature precedes CO2 increase. This is caused by the increased
erosion or carbonate rocks in the litosphere and the liberation of
CO2 by oceans when temperature raises. The causes of the cycles
that you see in the graphic are due to the orbit of earth around
the sun, there is no CO2 causation but the opposite. the
correlation exist, but the causation is just the reverse to the
promoted by the alarmists.
Natural sources of CO2 exceed the antropogenic production by
orders of magnitude. a single eruption can produce more CO2 than
the entire human population in a year.
You're right in that it's naturally messy enough.
But so what? 313 ppm in 1960 to 390 ppm in 2010, with current measured
amount of CO2 exceeding geological maximum values; I just don't see
the logic of adding to this mindlessly by burning more black stuff. I
do see the plausibility of shooting for long term energy solutions
that add, burn, or otherwise muck around with the fragile global
ecology, our only home at the moment, less. And I'm open to all of it,
hemp prominently included, provided that we burn/waste less in the
No final solutions. These problems will not leave, regardless of our
capacity to deny infinitely.
Your making a straw man argument, mate! Even if we stipulate as a
fact that "...current measured amount of CO2 exceeding geological
maximum values", this does nothing to force decisions such as how not to
"muck around with the fragile global ecology". It is the home of all of
us, not jush some elite few that wish the rest us us to stop breathing.
I have read the papers of the alarmist with eyes wide open, there is
lots of discussion of how to "reduce populations" and so forth. There is
even chatter about "crimes against nature" tribunals for those that
"deny the consensus science". Science must be eternally skeptical of
being subservient to politics.
The need to perpetually get grant money for research has perverted
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at