On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Stephen P. King <>wrote:

>  On 1/18/2013 12:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 7:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 7:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
> <>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 things
> clearer.
>>   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 long run.
> No final solutions. These problems will not leave, regardless of our
> capacity to deny infinitely.
> ------
> PGC,
>     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".
> How about some actual quotes and citations - lest we suspect you of
> creating a straw man.
> Brent
>    Try

So we should stop population growth before tackling energy? If the
"survivors" of this very likely scenario are as flexible in their thinking
as you are here, then it wouldn't make a difference: you guys would still
sully your own garden, regardless of any numbers.

"Alarmism" itself towards any criticism of how we tackle energy problems is
already ad hominem. Then the move to distract by conjuring up population
growth problem. Yes they are related, but one doesn't negate the other: the
world faces a lot of problems and bringing one up to play denial on another
is what it is. Red Herring. All of them have to be tackled and framed more

> and
>  really don't have time to do what you should be doing for yourself.

Ad hominem 2. Same as above.

And no, I don't need to cite 100 sources to verify claims to you. My
standards are more modest than that:

Everything I've said here can be verified by gardening or taking care of a
couple of plants, animals, human beings for extended periods of time.

If you want the ultimate test on the subject, a personal empirical approach
will bring my point across with more authority than anybody's paper or
arguments: try growing or caring for your any lifeforms you deem
appropriate, like I said plants, animals, children for extended periods of
time, split whichever life you choose to care for, into two sets, and
subject one set to random mutagens (e.g. research industrial waste,
hydraulic fracturing and make a selection), carbon, and extreme temperature
shifts, spikes and stresses, while keeping the other set safe from the
same. Then after a few years, tell us which population thrived.

I don't need Ivy League authority and citations for common sense. Sure, I
read papers but I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.


> --
> Onward!
> Stephen
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to