David:
Just to clarify my point, I have no idea, personally, if man is a main contributor to issues regarding climate change or an insignificant contributor. My point is simply that I would rather error on the side of caution since doing so is harmless. So to me, man MAY be contributing to climate change (since we do know CO2 is a green house gas) and reducing our contribution to CO2 levels is entirely harmless (in my opinion). You think current efforts to reduce carbon emissions will have an adverse effect on the economy of the world. I completely disagree. That is our disconnect. In my mind all the “Global Warming Hoax” crowd are not really concerned about climate science but a perceived effect on economics. If they realized that their economic concern was entirely misplaced would they be so passionate about the subject? I don’t think so. Ransom From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments Ransom, Thanks for the positive things you have stated about my previous postings. I realize that this particular issue is very polarized and hesitated to become involved in the discussion, but one should not stand by and let bad science be used without pointing it out. I once accepted the global warming issue as being valid, but decided to see just how severe the problem was according to information available on the web. I was amazed to find that things were not as I had expected. It concerned me greatly that proponents of the issue were carefully adjusting their dates and neglecting historical data in order to make their point. The more I reviewed the data, the more I realized that something was not right concerning what we are being told. I understand that you apparently are still convinced that man is the main contributor to the problem, but have you actually reviewed the data yourself? I was under the same perception as you before I checked the facts. I am open to being corrected in my understanding if anyone can prove that strong nonscientific motives are being applied to prove that man is not the main contributor to global warming. Are you effectively stating that the information contained within most of that material is fabricated? Am I mistaken to believe that a little ice age occurred around 1800 because of false data? The records show that sun spots were not significant at the same time as the cooling. I also know for a fact that Jefferson had an ice house where he stored ice that was cut from a nearby river during the winter to keep foods cool during the summer. Now, you would have a difficult time finding ice to cut in that area. There was very little river ice there even before the 1940's when the pollution began in earnest. Do you believe that there was no warming period during which the Vikings farmed southern areas of Greenland during the warmer middle ages when the temperatures were apparently warmer than today? How about the period from 1940 to about 1970 when these same types of scientists were warning about an ice age beginning due to the cooling that was evident even though carbon dioxide levels were well on the way upwards? I just want to add one more question to the list that I find hard to answer. Why do all the folks that have such great concern for the global warming problem hide the fact that 95% of the warming gas is water vapor? And, of course, they make assumptions that there is a large multiplier associated with the effect of carbon dioxide on that water vapor. None of them think that the carbon dioxide alone is going to be a significant problem without the large multiplier. What unscientific motive could we apply to the professor that started the entire carbon dioxide concern who later realize he was in error? I could go on but it would be better for you and anyone else who wants to seek the truth to do their own research. With due respect, anyone that accepts the settled science without any question is a bit naive. The climate is going to change with or without us being involved and thus far it has not been established that the generally warming episode that is currently taking place is bad for the world or mankind. Everything I have seen suggests that the world is becoming greener as a result of the carbon we are releasing. The computer models are not realistic as of today and can not be counted upon to predict with any degree of accuracy the climate in 100 years, since apparently they weigh the effect of carbon dioxide much too heavily to generate their predictions. The politically correct answer would be to spend a trillion dollars a year to attempt to prevent something that does not appear to be a problem. Who would be asked to make this contribution when so many people are starving around the world? Can we win in a battle against the world itself? What if we were to succeed and start the world plunging into another ice age due to our intervention? Can we be sure this will not occur? It is unfortunate that we are not able to find common ground on this subject, but I feel that I have taken the time to become better informed than many. Perhaps you believe that I have become mislead by the global warming deniers but I instead suggest that you may be under the influence of those that would take away your civil rights using scare tactics. Please take the time to study the issue before you pass judgement on my beliefs. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Ransom Wuller < <mailto:rwul...@freeark.com> rwul...@freeark.com> To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments David: I typically enjoy your posts but I find the “Global Warming Hoax” material utterly ridiculous. It is being driven by strong nonscientific motives. Please examine your motives for embracing it. Then answer this question, “If there is even a minimal chance that WE (humanity) are contributing to a warming of the planet, what is the HARM of minimizing that effect” (and supporting steps to so minimize)? Your answer will tell you everything you need to understand about your motives and bias. PS, the HARM (instituting carbon emission standards etc) you imagine is just that (imagined) and it has to do with economics not science. Ransom From: David Roberson [ <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com?> mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:09 PM To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself. That is your decision. You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that LENR is not real because most physicists believe that. Have you actually taken the time to look at how that 97% figure was determined? If you did, you would have seen that it was proven false and that the university for which the scientist worked could not be forced to release the procedure used to reach that figure. A hacker finally obtained the data! It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any research on your own. Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read plenty of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc. It shouldn't take too long for you to realize that the science is quite flawed. Of course, if you believe that the science is settled, then you do not need to research further. Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles? If not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you prove it is. Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up. It is mainly a natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell < <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments David Roberson < <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for 90% of the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but keeps being stated over and over. That's nonsense. You sound like the editors at Scientific American who keep assuring me that no paper on cold fusion has ever been published. Most climatologists are sure that CO2 from burning fuel is causing global warming. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong, but there is no doubt that is what the majority of them think. Not <1%; most of them. This is a matter of fact. Not an opinion, and not a scientific dispute. This is what climatologists say in opinion polls and in their own journals and web sites. You can dispute scientific findings all you like, but you cannot dispute what climatologists tell poll takers, or what they say publicly. They DO NOT say what you claim they say. Along the same lines, the people at Scientific American may claim that no good papers have been published. They may claim that no papers have been published in Nature, or in Science. But when they say that no papers have been published they are denying a matter of fact that anyone can verify. That's stupid. - Jed
