--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > The below "debate" is an attempt to bring such complexity into the warming > discussion that most folks head for the hills when the geek at the party > starts arguing with the nerd. Try to get "experts" to even agree what the > ocean's level is -- why, you'll be there for a lifetime trying to figure out > what to believe, cuz, there's tides and waves and local but temporary waxing > and waining. And that rhymes with migraine and I'm outta here sez the > average Jane. > > Like that, the politicians create obfuscation and then, in the absence of a > general audience that's up on the topic, they can simply do what their > bribers want them to do, knowing that they can effectively debate with anyone > in the public and seem reasonable.....politicians love deniability. Think > Clinton and how much time was spent defining the word "is." > > Think thalidomide. Remember that drug that was prescribed by physicians to, > say, 20,000,000 women (don't know the figure) and out started coming all the > flipper kids? Yet, our glorious BigPharm and the government said all the > testing that was necessary had been done on the drug -- so many rabbits > killed and dissected etc. > > Just so, when it comes to putting a chemical into our beloved Earth's > atmosphere (her lungs,) I'm one of those who kinda gets yucked out by that -- > just on the principle of the thing.
...and I agree with you that said chemicals are bad. But CO2 is NOT a "chemical" in the same sense that a pollutant is. CO2 can be -- and is -- a good thing. The argument can be made that spewing CO2 into the atmosphere has only benefits to it (i.e. making plants grow). > Think how you'd feel if a doctor told you that your newborn infant needed to > have India Ink injected into her pure pristine body. Oh, you'd be assured > that it was a harmless procedure needed for some sort of scientific use, but > that explanation would not make you comfortable, and it wouldn't tamp down > your yucky response processes. > > Next time you read the ingredients on the label of your packaged food, > consider that each of the non-food chemicals arrived at the food-factory in > 55 gallon drums, and that you wouldn't eat a tablespoon full of any of them > straight from the barrel. Same fucking deal we're handing Mother Earth -- a > generally recognized as safe list of chemicals and bug parts that are allowed > in our food. > > "Don't worry, Mom, the BHT is a preservative, and it's been as scrutinized as > thalidomide by real scientists -- scientists who are hard at work night and > day discovering chemical truths for huge corporations -- so you know it's all > being done in a top notch fashion." > > The government allows over 30,000 chemicals into the soil, air and water. > Your breathing, your very breathing, your drinking, your very drinking, and > your nourishment, your very nourishment is BEING FUCKED WITH BY THOSE WHO > SIMPLY CANNOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO, and most don't know that it's all determined > by BigMoney. > > Ask the aluminum industry what they did to get fluoride (an aluminum industry > by-product chemical of great toxicity and no usefulness: > http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm ) Ask 'em. Their > answer: dump it in the local drinking water and call it a miracle for kids' > teeth. Spend some bucks buying off the dental associations. Done deal. > > BigMedia isn't churning about any of this in the headlines. Who cares who's > making money from anything, right? > > What this country needs is another doctor who tells it, "Take two > thalidomides and call Dr. Maddoff or Dr. AIG in the morning." > > I figures we need a couple more BigRich thieves caught red-handed and a major > chemical that fucks up kids being touted by the AMA like it was a new > children's vitamin. Toss in another Katrina, and now ya gots the basis of a > fomentation of a national undercurrent of a queasiness in the American gut. > > Until then, think of every smoke stack like it's Mother Earth smoking a > cigarette behind the barn. > > Edg > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > Simple stuff. If the extra CO2 didn't keep the world warmer then > > > we'd have to re-write the laws of thermodynamics. A famous > > > scientist once said something along the lines of "If your new > > > theory conflicts with Newtonian Mechanics, then tough for > > > Newtonian Mechanics, if your new theory conflicts with > > > Special Relativity then tough for Special Relativity, but if your > > > new theory conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics then you > > > new theory is in deep trouble". > > > > > > That's where the arguments of climate change deniers fall down, > > > they conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, oh and actual > > > observations as well. > > > > > > You need to get your information from sources other than Faux News > > /Fox Noise, try this > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change . > > > > > > If that's too tough for you then stick to this > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland . > > > > > > > "Simple stuff" eh? Too simple? > > > > One wonders why emminent scientists e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Svensmark, > > Dyson, Grey etc etc could be so scientifically illiterate as to not > > *get* the truths that to you appear to be so simple and beyond question. > > > > Here'a one of those brainless idiots who lacks your cognitive > > excellence: Syun Akasofu, Founding director of the International Arctic > > Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK: > > > > "... > > 1. The IPCC wants to claim that the global average temperature has > > unexpectedly and abruptly increased during the 20th century after a > > gradual cooling from the year 1000, and that this unexpected increase > > of the temperature is mostly man-made-the greenhouse effect of CO2. > > > > 2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went > > through a cold period called "the Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800. > > > > 3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to > > the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly > > this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not > > man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they > > cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased > > from 1900. > > > > 3a. In addition to the steady recovery from the Little Ice Age, there > > are superposed oscillatory changes. The prominent one is called the > > multi-decadal oscillation. > > > > 3b. In fact, most of the temperature change from 1800 to 2008 can be > > explained by the combination of the recovery from the Little Ice Age > > and the multi-decadal oscillation. If the recovery from the Little Ice > > Age continues, the predicted temperature rise will be less than 1°C > > (2°F) by 2100, not 3~6°C. > > > > 4. Because the warming began as early as 1800, not after 1946 (when CO2 > > in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly), the Little Ice Age was a > > sort of unwanted and inconvenient fact for the IPCC. (In their > > voluminous IPCC report, the Little Ice Age was mentioned casually only > > once, referring to it as "the so-called Little Ice Age.") > > > > 5. There are a large number of observations that the Earth has been > > recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 on, not from 1946 when CO2 > > in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. For example: > > * Receding of glaciers in many part of the world > > * Receding of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean > > * Change in freezing/melting dates of northern rivers and lakes > > > > 6. There is no firm observational confirmation that CO2 is really > > responsible for the warming during the last century. It is simply and > > assumption or hypothesis that the IPCC has presented as a fact. > > > > 7. The IPCC claims that supercomputer studies confirm the hypothesis. > > > > 8. Supercomputers cannot confirm their hypothesis, since they can > > simply "tune" their computer programs so as to fit the observations. > > > > 9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature > > will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 > > and shows even a decreasing sign. > > > > 10. Thus, their prediction failed even during the first decade of the > > present century, in spite of the fact that CO2 is still increasing. > > > > 11. This means that their CO2 hypothesis and computer programs are > > shown to be incorrect, proving that the program was tuned. > > > > 12. Why? Because they ignored natural causes of climate change, such > > as the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal > > oscillation. > > > > 13. The stopping of the warming is caused by the fact that the multi- > > decadal oscillation, another natural cause, has overtaken the recovery > > from the Little Ice Age. > > > > 14. In fact, the same thing happened in 1940, and the temperature > > actually decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that CO2 > > began to increase rapidly in 1946. > > > > 15. It was said at that time that a new ice age was coming even by some > > of those who now advocate the CO2 hypothesis. > > > > 16. If the IPCC could include the physical processes involved in the > > recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, > > they could have predicted the stopping of the temperature increase. > > > > 17. However, they could not program processes for the recovery from the > > Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, because the causes of > > the Little Ice Age, or the recovery from it, or the multi-decadal > > oscillation are not known yet. There are many unknown natural changes, > > including the Big Ice Ages. > > > > 18. Thus, the present state of climate change study is still > > insufficient to make accurate predictions of future temperature > > changes. Climate change studies should go back to basic science, > > avoiding interference from special interest groups, including the mass > > media. > > > > 19. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the IPCC manipulated science > > for its own purpose and brought the premature science of climate change > > to the international political stage, causing considerable confusion > > and advancing the completely unnecessary "cap and trade" argument. > > > > 20. What is happening now at many climate change conferences is simply > > an airing of the struggle between the poor countries trying to seize > > money from the rich countries, using the term "climate change" as an > > excuse. > > > > 21. We should stop convening useless international conferences by > > bureaucrats and pay much more attention to environmental destructions > > under global capitalism. There is no reason to alarm the general > > public with predictions of catastrophic disasters caused by the CO2 > > effect; and the mass media should stop reporting premature science > > results. > > > > 22. Basically, what is really needed are effective energy saving > > efforts by all countries. > > > > Footnote: The hockey stick figure, which played the important role in > > the IPCC report of 2001, has not officially been withdrawn yet, > > although it has since been found to be erroneous. > > ..." > > >
