Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OK........I've had enough of this
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95571 is a reply to message #95554] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 10:37   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:47a85854@linux...
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a7f891@linux...
>>
>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>
>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>> Bullshit...sorry got to call you on this one
Why? Automatic gainsaying of every study you see that doesn't feed your
confirmation biases is not convincing. You'll have to give reasons, for
this one and all the rest.
> Try this on for size...open letter to the Bali Conference...check the link
> to the list of signatories at the borttom of the article
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Great! I'll pick it apart over in General to spare Neil any cognitive
dissonance. :^)
> I can only say that when the world's two top scientists (Hawkins and Dyson)
> disagree on this topic you can be damn sure the science of "Climate Change"
> is far from decided
Waiting around until all scientists agree means never doing anything.
The threshold is not, "does everyone agree 100%," but "on what most of
the evidence shows, what is the risk posed by doing nothing?"
We know this:
-We only get one shot at this. One window of opportunity.
-The risks of inaction are significant even at the lower range of
projections.
-Compelling evidence shows that humans are contributing to the
current climate change event, which on the plus side means we have the
possibility to control our contribution.
-The more we wait, the harder it will be to mitigate.
Given all that, it makes sense to act to mitigate our greenhouse gas
contributions sooner rather than later. It's the prudent course.
We can keep arguing about the specifics in the mean time. We will never
get 100% of the scientists, let alone the politicians and special
interest groups, to agree until after the fact. When the world can look
back and say, boy we did the (check one) ___right ___wrong thing. At
which point our great grandkids will (check one) ___thank us ___hate us.
> nuff said...crawling back under my rock
Probably a pretty efficient living arrangement with all that thermal
mass, if it's insulated. ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95575 is a reply to message #95557] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 11:00 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> "erlilo" <erling.lovik@lyse.net> wrote in message
> news:5lagq3l1ms0s7p7j5v3r9erjmpakm3au64@4ax.com...
>> There's allways new ways for someone to get more $ out of problems in
>> the world, so I'm sure this also will fix everything for some few
>> ones;-)
>>
>> Erling
>>
>
>
>
> With the amount of money it would cost Canada to adhere to Kyoto for one
> year we could provide all of Africa with clean safe drinking water for 30
> years.
Or you could go to the moon. Or buy every puppy a Popsicle.
All are false choices. The question is "what should Canada do about
greenhouse gas emissions?"
If Canada also wants to consider water in Africa, going to the moon or
the puppy thing, those are separate issues.
Except possibly water in Africa, since climate change may cause drought
in certain areas. So maybe by addressing greenhouse gas emissions,
Canada can both mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and possibly help
Africa fend off future water problems.
But listen, here's the bottom line: Whether you agree with the solutions
Canada signed up for with Kyoto or not, the evidence for human
contribution to the current climate change event is compelling enough to
merit our attention. So if you have other ideas for mitigation, jump
into that conversation.
Kyoto ends in 1012. The next solutions agreement is being negotiated
now. And this time it is likely to include the USA, China and India.
So this next agreement will have a larger impact than Kyoto (and it
needs to).
> Interview with Tom Harris Director NRSP
>
> http://www.nrsp.com/
I didn't see an interview there, but I read some of their pages.
I agree with some of their stated objectives and disagree with others.
The good side of that is we have some common ground on some of the
generalities.
However, they are not the objective source they pretend to be. It looks
like they are pretty heavily involved in the denial industry from a
fossil fuels special interest perspective.
For your consideration.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources _Stewardship_Project
"The NRSP has been exposed recently as being controlled by energy
industry lobbyists."
"The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based
group of climate change skeptics the "Friends of Science" [5] (FoS),
even though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the
Chairman of the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of
the same scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the
NRSP is viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was
"outed" by The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly
funded by the oil and gas industry. [6]."
There's a lot more. Just so you know where your champions are coming
from, and what they are most likely to be championing.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95577 is a reply to message #95573] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 11:17 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
LOL You're kidding, right?
Climate change does not alter the fact that the earth has weather.
Who do you think is making that claim? That would be a false claim. Who
are you listening to for your scientific input? Where do you get this stuff?
Given the fact that the earth has weather systems, one possible outcome
from adding more energy to the system is it can cause weather to be more
erratic and extreme.
And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current climate
change event. But over time we can look for patterns.
Is that clearer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather
"The weather is the set of all extant phenomena in a given atmosphere at
a given time. It also includes interactions with the hydrosphere. The
term usually refers to the activity of these phenomena over short
periods (hours or days), as opposed to the term climate, which refers to
the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time."
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Last week we got some "thunder snow" - an unusual snowstorm that began
>> with lightning.
>>
>> Last night we got about four inches of snow. By the end of the week it
>> will be in the 50s in the Denver area.
>
> Gee, that sounds suspiciously like something we used to
> call "weather".
>
> You know, before we called it "global warming".
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95581 is a reply to message #95578] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 11:52 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> LOL You're kidding, right?
>
> Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
> perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
> some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
> that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
> global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
What I said in my last post to you was:
"And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current
climate change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
Before that I wrote:
"An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
scientists as a consequence of the current climate change event.
It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
(And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
Read that last paragraph again.
> Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
> the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
> to do something about it? No.
Agreed.
> But I also don't think we should
> slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
> greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
> of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
proposing that one?
Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
> and
> when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
> fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
> having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
> cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
> terms of credibility.
Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote
because I haven't been saying that.
Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who
implied that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely
facetious.
So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is
from climate change.
What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer is
THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S
SAKE, NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
LOL! ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95582 is a reply to message #95581] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 12:06 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Let's just all get together and have a big pie fight and then everything's
gonna be OK for a while.
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8c1bd$1@linux...
> Neil wrote:
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> LOL You're kidding, right?
>>
>> Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
>> perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
>> some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
>> that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
>> global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
>
> That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
>
> What I said in my last post to you was:
>
> "And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current climate
> change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
>
> Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
>
> Before that I wrote:
>
> "An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate scientists
> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>
> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>
> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>
> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
>
>
> Read that last paragraph again.
>
>
>> Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
>> the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
>> to do something about it? No.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> But I also don't think we should
>> slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
>> greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
>> of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
>
> I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
> proposing that one?
>
> Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
>
>
>> and
>> when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
>> fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
>> having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
>> cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
>> terms of credibility.
>
> Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote because
> I haven't been saying that.
>
> Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who implied
> that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely facetious.
>
> So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
> thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
> can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
> cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
>
> However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
> possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
> we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is from
> climate change.
>
> What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
>
> And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer is
> THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S SAKE,
> NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
>
> LOL! ;^)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Neil
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95583 is a reply to message #95575] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 12:07 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Your sources are wrong...they have openly discussed their funding and made
available to the media the sources and amounts contributed to their
organization and in fact there is very little oil funding - they've
answered the hard questions (in the media) regarding their funding and
apparent affiliations to my satisfaction and truly appear to be on the up
and up
That being said I find it funny you mention denial...seems that they have
invited and have a standing offer for an open debate on the facts
asurrounding Global Warming and to date not one IPCC, or Global Warming
advocate has been willing to discuss this topic in a public forum...wonder
why that is.
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> "erlilo" <erling.lovik@lyse.net> wrote in message
>> news:5lagq3l1ms0s7p7j5v3r9erjmpakm3au64@4ax.com...
>>> There's allways new ways for someone to get more $ out of problems in
>>> the world, so I'm sure this also will fix everything for some few
>>> ones;-)
>>>
>>> Erling
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> With the amount of money it would cost Canada to adhere to Kyoto for one
>> year we could provide all of Africa with clean safe drinking water for 30
>> years.
>
> Or you could go to the moon. Or buy every puppy a Popsicle.
>
> All are false choices. The question is "what should Canada do about
> greenhouse gas emissions?"
>
> If Canada also wants to consider water in Africa, going to the moon or the
> puppy thing, those are separate issues.
>
> Except possibly water in Africa, since climate change may cause drought in
> certain areas. So maybe by addressing greenhouse gas emissions, Canada can
> both mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and possibly help Africa fend off
> future water problems.
>
> But listen, here's the bottom line: Whether you agree with the solutions
> Canada signed up for with Kyoto or not, the evidence for human
> contribution to the current climate change event is compelling enough to
> merit our attention. So if you have other ideas for mitigation, jump into
> that conversation.
>
> Kyoto ends in 1012. The next solutions agreement is being negotiated now.
> And this time it is likely to include the USA, China and India.
>
> So this next agreement will have a larger impact than Kyoto (and it needs
> to).
>
>
>> Interview with Tom Harris Director NRSP
>>
>> http://www.nrsp.com/
>
> I didn't see an interview there, but I read some of their pages.
>
> I agree with some of their stated objectives and disagree with others. The
> good side of that is we have some common ground on some of the
> generalities.
>
> However, they are not the objective source they pretend to be. It looks
> like they are pretty heavily involved in the denial industry from a fossil
> fuels special interest perspective.
>
> For your consideration.
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources _Stewardship_Project
>
> "The NRSP has been exposed recently as being controlled by energy industry
> lobbyists."
>
> "The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based
> group of climate change skeptics the "Friends of Science" [5] (FoS), even
> though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the Chairman of
> the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of the same
> scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the NRSP is
> viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was "outed" by
> The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly funded by the
> oil and gas industry. [6]."
>
> There's a lot more. Just so you know where your champions are coming from,
> and what they are most likely to be championing.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95586 is a reply to message #95582] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 12:19 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mmmmm, PIE!!!
I'm so there.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Deej wrote:
> Let's just all get together and have a big pie fight and then everything's
> gonna be OK for a while.
> ;o)
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8c1bd$1@linux...
>> Neil wrote:
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> LOL You're kidding, right?
>>> Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
>>> perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
>>> some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
>>> that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
>>> global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
>> That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
>>
>> What I said in my last post to you was:
>>
>> "And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current climate
>> change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
>>
>> Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
>>
>> Before that I wrote:
>>
>> "An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate scientists
>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>
>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>
>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>>
>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
>>
>>
>> Read that last paragraph again.
>>
>>
>>> Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
>>> the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
>>> to do something about it? No.
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>> But I also don't think we should
>>> slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
>>> greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
>>> of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
>> I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
>> proposing that one?
>>
>> Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
>>> fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
>>> having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
>>> cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
>>> terms of credibility.
>> Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote because
>> I haven't been saying that.
>>
>> Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who implied
>> that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely facetious.
>>
>> So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
>> thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
>> can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
>> cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
>>
>> However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
>> possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
>> we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is from
>> climate change.
>>
>> What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
>>
>> And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer is
>> THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S SAKE,
>> NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
>>
>> LOL! ;^)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95588 is a reply to message #95583] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 12:30 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> Your sources are wrong...they have openly discussed their funding and made
> available to the media the sources and amounts contributed to their
> organization and in fact there is very little oil funding -
Very little oil funding? IOW, they do accept oil funding.
Just something to keep in mind especially if you are going to charge
others with bias based on money, which was one of your claims (and mine,
too). It's always interesting to know where a source's bread is buttered.
Accepting money from a biased source doesn't automatically make their
arguments wrong, but it does shed light on their perspective and may
explain if they choose to ignore some of the evidence in favor of a sponsor.
> they've
> answered the hard questions (in the media) regarding their funding and
> apparent affiliations to my satisfaction and truly appear to be on the up
> and up
Links please.
> That being said I find it funny you mention denial...seems that they have
> invited and have a standing offer for an open debate on the facts
> asurrounding Global Warming and to date not one IPCC, or Global Warming
> advocate has been willing to discuss this topic in a public forum...wonder
> why that is.
I mentioned denial because they are heavily denying existing evidence
with vague general statements on their web site. Similar statements to
those used by the denial industry in the USA.
I don't know anything about their debate challenge (links please) but
the issue is discussed widely worldwide. Although it's really moved on
to the solutions discussion at this point. Maybe they aren't being taken
seriously internationally. I'll be happy to discuss their perspective,
though.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> "erlilo" <erling.lovik@lyse.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5lagq3l1ms0s7p7j5v3r9erjmpakm3au64@4ax.com...
>>>> There's allways new ways for someone to get more $ out of problems in
>>>> the world, so I'm sure this also will fix everything for some few
>>>> ones;-)
>>>>
>>>> Erling
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With the amount of money it would cost Canada to adhere to Kyoto for one
>>> year we could provide all of Africa with clean safe drinking water for 30
>>> years.
>> Or you could go to the moon. Or buy every puppy a Popsicle.
>>
>> All are false choices. The question is "what should Canada do about
>> greenhouse gas emissions?"
>>
>> If Canada also wants to consider water in Africa, going to the moon or the
>> puppy thing, those are separate issues.
>>
>> Except possibly water in Africa, since climate change may cause drought in
>> certain areas. So maybe by addressing greenhouse gas emissions, Canada can
>> both mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and possibly help Africa fend off
>> future water problems.
>>
>> But listen, here's the bottom line: Whether you agree with the solutions
>> Canada signed up for with Kyoto or not, the evidence for human
>> contribution to the current climate change event is compelling enough to
>> merit our attention. So if you have other ideas for mitigation, jump into
>> that conversation.
>>
>> Kyoto ends in 1012. The next solutions agreement is being negotiated now.
>> And this time it is likely to include the USA, China and India.
>>
>> So this next agreement will have a larger impact than Kyoto (and it needs
>> to).
>>
>>
>>> Interview with Tom Harris Director NRSP
>>>
>>> http://www.nrsp.com/
>> I didn't see an interview there, but I read some of their pages.
>>
>> I agree with some of their stated objectives and disagree with others. The
>> good side of that is we have some common ground on some of the
>> generalities.
>>
>> However, they are not the objective source they pretend to be. It looks
>> like they are pretty heavily involved in the denial industry from a fossil
>> fuels special interest perspective.
>>
>> For your consideration.
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources _Stewardship_Project
>>
>> "The NRSP has been exposed recently as being controlled by energy industry
>> lobbyists."
>>
>> "The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based
>> group of climate change skeptics the "Friends of Science" [5] (FoS), even
>> though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the Chairman of
>> the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of the same
>> scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the NRSP is
>> viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was "outed" by
>> The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly funded by the
>> oil and gas industry. [6]."
>>
>> There's a lot more. Just so you know where your champions are coming from,
>> and what they are most likely to be championing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95591 is a reply to message #95590] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 13:09 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> "Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:47a8c729$1@linux...
>> "Deej" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>> Let's just all get together and have a big pie fight and then everything's
>>> gonna be OK for a while.
>>> ;o)
>> No, because a good pie fight necessitates the use of aerosol-
>> based propellants for the requisite whipped toppings for said
>> pies... said propellants being a major contributor to
>> the destruction of the ozone layer, hence accellerating global
>> warming.
>>
>> Neil
>
> those are CFCs Neil...have nothing to do with greenhouse gasses so whip
> cream away
>
> hehe
>
> And yes I was being a smart ass with my Deej's weather is a result of global
> warming comment.
>
> Speaking of weather...China's having the coldest winter in a hundred
> years...think it might be a sign of global cooling....wait didn't we deal
> with that in the 70's...or was it the 80's...doesn't matter because it was a
> natural phenomenon called weather cycles...somewhat like this one we're
> in...but just to be sure let's pump billions of dollars into useless CO2
> reductions just in case.
You're just baiting now, Don. :^)
Misinterpreting the science, and begging the question.
Google global cooling and see if you can't knock down that straw man
yourself. Then read up on weather cycles and get back to me with
specifics. And remember that climate change doesn't magically keep
weather from happening.
Meanwhile, the world moves on with solutions. Even Canada (except maybe
for your "hardly any oil money" guys ;^).
> The research is far from over Jamie and the more that comes in the more the
> evidence points to causes far more significant than man's contribution to
> the atmosphere's CO2 levels.
Of course research is ongoing, Don. And it will be for a long while yet.
There's always more to learn. But we already know quite a lot after
decades of research.
So far, the research is showing that human contributions are a
significant factor in the current climate change event.
None of the scientists are so ignorant that they don't take other
climate drivers into account. Except maybe your guys who perhaps ONLY
take other climate drivers into account. :^)
If you check I believe we have as humans
> increased the CO2 levels by 3% which is approximately 0.0003% of the total
> make up of the earths atmosphere yet changes is the suns activity have a
> significant effect on the level of watervapour in the atmosphere which as we
> all know is the real engine in temperature change on the planet
Thanks for bringing up the tiny number scare. It's specious.
We are releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases that were
previously sequestered underground. By adding them to the tiny fraction
of the atmosphere composed of greenhouse gases already in circulation,
we're affecting the ability of the atmosphere to retain infrared heat
(that's what the greenhouse gases do). With a long lifetime in the
atmosphere, the gases stay around and we keep adding to them. And so we
are able to have an effect on the average global temperature over time.
> And on a slightly different note but on (off) topic check the latest news on
> NASA's weather reporting stations records on temperature...seems they made a
> mistake in their calculations...on the high side...oops made a mistake sorry
> to scare you guys.
Link? That sounds like old news, long since corrected. Get with the
times, Don. Are we going to hear every denial rationalization now, one
after the other? I've probably heard them all by now. I should number them.
At some point you're going to realize that your real complaint is with
some of the proposed solutions, rather than with the essential facts of
the problem. Denying the problem is just an ineffective way of trying to
head off solutions that may not be politically attractive to you. It's a
losing strategy on multiple levels. For one thing it removes you from
the solutions debate where you could have an effect on the solutions chosen.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95602 is a reply to message #95588] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 14:07 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8cad0@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> Your sources are wrong...they have openly discussed their funding and
>> made available to the media the sources and amounts contributed to their
>> organization and in fact there is very little oil funding -
>
> Very little oil funding? IOW, they do accept oil funding.
>
> Just something to keep in mind especially if you are going to charge
> others with bias based on money, which was one of your claims (and mine,
> too). It's always interesting to know where a source's bread is buttered.
>
> Accepting money from a biased source doesn't automatically make their
> arguments wrong, but it does shed light on their perspective and may
> explain if they choose to ignore some of the evidence in favor of a
> sponsor.
Actually they were initially funded by the University of Alberta and much
their funding came from the oil industry so they were indirectly funded by
the oil industry
>
>
>> they've answered the hard questions (in the media) regarding their
>> funding and apparent affiliations to my satisfaction and truly appear to
>> be on the up and up
>
> Links please.
http://www.nrsp.com/news.html - sorry, don't remember which interview but
it's there...late summer early fall 07 I believe (either with Lowell Green
or CBC or both)
>
>
>> That being said I find it funny you mention denial...seems that they have
>> invited and have a standing offer for an open debate on the facts
>> asurrounding Global Warming and to date not one IPCC, or Global Warming
>> advocate has been willing to discuss this topic in a public
>> forum...wonder why that is.
>
> I mentioned denial because they are heavily denying existing evidence with
> vague general statements on their web site. Similar statements to those
> used by the denial industry in the USA.
Same URL - many of their articles and interviews get very specific
>
> I don't know anything about their debate challenge (links please) but the
> issue is discussed widely worldwide. Although it's really moved on to the
> solutions discussion at this point. Maybe they aren't being taken
> seriously internationally. I'll be happy to discuss their perspective,
> though.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
same URL - will take you to the article or interview (December 23rd I
believe)
And lastly comparing the unsafe drinking water in a continent to buying a
puppy a popsicle is a sad and disturbing commentary on the
enviro-movement....in fact they have been accused of using Kyoto etc as a
means of keeping the underdeveloped countries underdeveloped. Trust
me...follow the money, I think you'll be surprised.
>
>>
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> "erlilo" <erling.lovik@lyse.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:5lagq3l1ms0s7p7j5v3r9erjmpakm3au64@4ax.com...
>>>>> There's allways new ways for someone to get more $ out of problems in
>>>>> the world, so I'm sure this also will fix everything for some few
>>>>> ones;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Erling
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the amount of money it would cost Canada to adhere to Kyoto for
>>>> one year we could provide all of Africa with clean safe drinking water
>>>> for 30 years.
>>> Or you could go to the moon. Or buy every puppy a Popsicle.
>>>
>>> All are false choices. The question is "what should Canada do about
>>> greenhouse gas emissions?"
>>>
>>> If Canada also wants to consider water in Africa, going to the moon or
>>> the puppy thing, those are separate issues.
>>>
>>> Except possibly water in Africa, since climate change may cause drought
>>> in certain areas. So maybe by addressing greenhouse gas emissions,
>>> Canada can both mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and possibly help
>>> Africa fend off future water problems.
>>>
>>> But listen, here's the bottom line: Whether you agree with the solutions
>>> Canada signed up for with Kyoto or not, the evidence for human
>>> contribution to the current climate change event is compelling enough to
>>> merit our attention. So if you have other ideas for mitigation, jump
>>> into that conversation.
>>>
>>> Kyoto ends in 1012. The next solutions agreement is being negotiated
>>> now. And this time it is likely to include the USA, China and India.
>>>
>>> So this next agreement will have a larger impact than Kyoto (and it
>>> needs to).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interview with Tom Harris Director NRSP
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nrsp.com/
>>> I didn't see an interview there, but I read some of their pages.
>>>
>>> I agree with some of their stated objectives and disagree with others.
>>> The good side of that is we have some common ground on some of the
>>> generalities.
>>>
>>> However, they are not the objective source they pretend to be. It looks
>>> like they are pretty heavily involved in the denial industry from a
>>> fossil fuels special interest perspective.
>>>
>>> For your consideration.
>>>
>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources _Stewardship_Project
>>>
>>> "The NRSP has been exposed recently as being controlled by energy
>>> industry lobbyists."
>>>
>>> "The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based
>>> group of climate change skeptics the "Friends of Science" [5] (FoS),
>>> even though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the
>>> Chairman of the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of
>>> the same scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the
>>> NRSP is viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was
>>> "outed" by The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly
>>> funded by the oil and gas industry. [6]."
>>>
>>> There's a lot more. Just so you know where your champions are coming
>>> from, and what they are most likely to be championing.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95604 is a reply to message #95591] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 14:19 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8d3cf@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> "Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:47a8c729$1@linux...
>>> "Deej" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>>> Let's just all get together and have a big pie fight and then
>>>> everything's
>>>> gonna be OK for a while.
>>>> ;o)
>>> No, because a good pie fight necessitates the use of aerosol-
>>> based propellants for the requisite whipped toppings for said
>>> pies... said propellants being a major contributor to
>>> the destruction of the ozone layer, hence accellerating global
>>> warming.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>> those are CFCs Neil...have nothing to do with greenhouse gasses so whip
>> cream away
>>
>> hehe
>>
>> And yes I was being a smart ass with my Deej's weather is a result of
>> global warming comment.
>>
>> Speaking of weather...China's having the coldest winter in a hundred
>> years...think it might be a sign of global cooling....wait didn't we deal
>> with that in the 70's...or was it the 80's...doesn't matter because it
>> was a natural phenomenon called weather cycles...somewhat like this one
>> we're in...but just to be sure let's pump billions of dollars into
>> useless CO2 reductions just in case.
>
> You're just baiting now, Don. :^)
yes...my apologies, couldn't resist
> Misinterpreting the science, and begging the question.
>
> Google global cooling and see if you can't knock down that straw man
> yourself. Then read up on weather cycles and get back to me with
> specifics. And remember that climate change doesn't magically keep weather
> from happening.
>
> Meanwhile, the world moves on with solutions. Even Canada (except maybe
> for your "hardly any oil money" guys ;^).
talk about baiting (hehehehe)
actually Canada proposed a 20% decrease in emissions and that still didn't
satisfy the enviro-movement
>> The research is far from over Jamie and the more that comes in the more
>> the evidence points to causes far more significant than man's
>> contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 levels.
>
> Of course research is ongoing, Don. And it will be for a long while yet.
> There's always more to learn. But we already know quite a lot after
> decades of research.
I've heard that 90+ % of the research on cllimate change has has taken place
since 1997
> So far, the research is showing that human contributions are a significant
> factor in the current climate change event.
>
> None of the scientists are so ignorant that they don't take other climate
> drivers into account. Except maybe your guys who perhaps ONLY take other
> climate drivers into account. :^)
>
>
> If you check I believe we have as humans
>> increased the CO2 levels by 3% which is approximately 0.0003% of the
>> total make up of the earths atmosphere yet changes is the suns activity
>> have a significant effect on the level of watervapour in the atmosphere
>> which as we all know is the real engine in temperature change on the
>> planet
>
> Thanks for bringing up the tiny number scare. It's specious.
>
> We are releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases that were
> previously sequestered underground. By adding them to the tiny fraction of
> the atmosphere composed of greenhouse gases already in circulation, we're
> affecting the ability of the atmosphere to retain infrared heat (that's
> what the greenhouse gases do). With a long lifetime in the atmosphere, the
> gases stay around and we keep adding to them. And so we are able to have
> an effect on the average global temperature over time.
>
>
>> And on a slightly different note but on (off) topic check the latest news
>> on NASA's weather reporting stations records on temperature...seems they
>> made a mistake in their calculations...on the high side...oops made a
>> mistake sorry to scare you guys.
>
> Link? That sounds like old news, long since corrected. Get with the times,
> Don. Are we going to hear every denial rationalization now, one after the
> other? I've probably heard them all by now. I should number them.
http://www.nrsp.com/news.html interview with Tom Harris (late Janury I
believe)
>
> At some point you're going to realize that your real complaint is with
> some of the proposed solutions, rather than with the essential facts of
> the problem. Denying the problem is just an ineffective way of trying to
> head off solutions that may not be politically attractive to you. It's a
> losing strategy on multiple levels. For one thing it removes you from the
> solutions debate where you could have an effect on the solutions chosen.
Wrong, it opens up debate which this subject has been sorely lacking in
since the IPCC report was issued.
and I will stop here. You're entitled to one rebuttal to my last posts then
we must move this to the General forum or wait at least six months before
bringing it up again
:-)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95610 is a reply to message #95602] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 14:33 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> Actually they were initially funded by the University of Alberta and much
> their funding came from the oil industry so they were indirectly funded by
> the oil industry
> http://www.nrsp.com/news.html - sorry, don't remember which interview but
> it's there...late summer early fall 07 I believe (either with Lowell Green
> or CBC or both)
>>
> Same URL - many of their articles and interviews get very specific
>
> same URL - will take you to the article or interview (December 23rd I
> believe)
So your only support for the validity of this group is the web site from
the same group? That's not enough.
Looking over their news page it appears to be a long list of cherry
picked examples, scapegoating and hyperbole while ignoring most of the
evidence.
You should widen your horizons.
> And lastly comparing the unsafe drinking water in a continent to buying a
> puppy a popsicle is a sad and disturbing commentary on the
> enviro-movement....
What? No it's not. That's just my weird sense of humor.
Just trying to point out to you that you set up a false choice there,
and it almost doesn't matter what the second choice is, your false
choice is merely a rhetorical diversion.
Now you're being further diverted by the puppies. What did the puppies
ever do to you!!!??? ;^)
> in fact they have been accused of using Kyoto etc as a
> means of keeping the underdeveloped countries underdeveloped.
Yeah, that was in that ridiculously slanted "Swindle" video. Totally
specious. If you buy that, you'll buy anything.
> Trust
> me...follow the money, I think you'll be surprised.
If you truly want to follow the money Don, you can't ignore the fossil
fuel lobby's interest in this issue. Because that's where, by far, the
most money is. Including some with your NRSP guys.
As with most issues there are a few scammers on all sides, some at the
fringes, and some front and center. I denounce them all, how about that!
It's looking like your guys are probably in that group, too.
But what matters is the scientific evidence. Most of which you appear to
be simply ignoring, apparently because a denier web site says "trust us."
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95613 is a reply to message #95604] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 14:50 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> You're just baiting now, Don. :^)
Don Nafe wrote:
> yes...my apologies, couldn't resist
But dang, then I'll answer you and then Neil will get all bent out of
shape about it. See how you are! :^)
>> Misinterpreting the science, and begging the question.
>>
>> Google global cooling and see if you can't knock down that straw man
>> yourself. Then read up on weather cycles and get back to me with
>> specifics. And remember that climate change doesn't magically keep weather
>> from happening.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the world moves on with solutions. Even Canada (except maybe
>> for your "hardly any oil money" guys ;^).
>
> talk about baiting (hehehehe)
>
> actually Canada proposed a 20% decrease in emissions and that still didn't
> satisfy the enviro-movement
I imagine not.
I'll make a prediction: no matter what we do someone won't be satisfied.
But that's not a good reason for inaction.
>>> The research is far from over Jamie and the more that comes in the more
>>> the evidence points to causes far more significant than man's
>>> contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 levels.
>> Of course research is ongoing, Don. And it will be for a long while yet.
>> There's always more to learn. But we already know quite a lot after
>> decades of research.
>
>
> I've heard that 90+ % of the research on cllimate change has has taken place
> since 1997
You've heard a lot of things. :^)
How about a link to something other than your denial site...
>> Link? That sounds like old news, long since corrected. Get with the times,
>> Don. Are we going to hear every denial rationalization now, one after the
>> other? I've probably heard them all by now. I should number them.
>
> http://www.nrsp.com/news.html interview with Tom Harris (late Janury I
> believe)
OH, OK, back to your denial site. Give me a specific link so I don't
have to listen to ALL of January's propaganda. ;^)
But it's probably a rehash, this one went around last summer and was
debunked then.
>> At some point you're going to realize that your real complaint is with
>> some of the proposed solutions, rather than with the essential facts of
>> the problem. Denying the problem is just an ineffective way of trying to
>> head off solutions that may not be politically attractive to you. It's a
>> losing strategy on multiple levels. For one thing it removes you from the
>> solutions debate where you could have an effect on the solutions chosen.
>
> Wrong, it opens up debate which this subject has been sorely lacking in
> since the IPCC report was issued.
Where have you been? This conversation has been going on scientifically
since at least the 1970s.
The IPCC has put out periodic reports since 1990.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
You can't come late to the party and pretend it just started. :^)
Now I understand your confusion...
> and I will stop here. You're entitled to one rebuttal to my last posts then
> we must move this to the General forum or wait at least six months before
> bringing it up again
No need, you've already taken enough rope to hang yourself my friend. ;^)
I'll put that other thing up on General when I get around to it...
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> :-)
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95616 is a reply to message #95610] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 15:18 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie within the various artlicles are links to several studies, reports and
research papers, within the interviews are comments made with backing
evidience
To date I have read every link you have posted and even quoted your sources.
So far you have done nothing but insist my sources are shills for big oil
and refuse to even read a single article a listen to an interview. that
simple fact speaks volumes about you and the enviro-movement.
I'm done
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8e781$1@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> Actually they were initially funded by the University of Alberta and much
>> their funding came from the oil industry so they were indirectly funded
>> by the oil industry
>> http://www.nrsp.com/news.html - sorry, don't remember which interview but
>> it's there...late summer early fall 07 I believe (either with Lowell
>> Green or CBC or both)
>>>
> > Same URL - many of their articles and interviews get very specific
>>
>> same URL - will take you to the article or interview (December 23rd I
>> believe)
>
> So your only support for the validity of this group is the web site from
> the same group? That's not enough.
>
> Looking over their news page it appears to be a long list of cherry picked
> examples, scapegoating and hyperbole while ignoring most of the evidence.
>
> You should widen your horizons.
>
>
>> And lastly comparing the unsafe drinking water in a continent to buying a
>> puppy a popsicle is a sad and disturbing commentary on the
>> enviro-movement....
>
> What? No it's not. That's just my weird sense of humor.
>
> Just trying to point out to you that you set up a false choice there, and
> it almost doesn't matter what the second choice is, your false choice is
> merely a rhetorical diversion.
>
> Now you're being further diverted by the puppies. What did the puppies
> ever do to you!!!??? ;^)
>
>
>> in fact they have been accused of using Kyoto etc as a means of keeping
>> the underdeveloped countries underdeveloped.
>
> Yeah, that was in that ridiculously slanted "Swindle" video. Totally
> specious. If you buy that, you'll buy anything.
>
>
>> Trust me...follow the money, I think you'll be surprised.
>
> If you truly want to follow the money Don, you can't ignore the fossil
> fuel lobby's interest in this issue. Because that's where, by far, the
> most money is. Including some with your NRSP guys.
>
> As with most issues there are a few scammers on all sides, some at the
> fringes, and some front and center. I denounce them all, how about that!
> It's looking like your guys are probably in that group, too.
>
> But what matters is the scientific evidence. Most of which you appear to
> be simply ignoring, apparently because a denier web site says "trust us."
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95620 is a reply to message #95616] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 15:55 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> Jamie within the various artlicles are links to several studies, reports and
> research papers, within the interviews are comments made with backing
> evidience
>
> To date I have read every link you have posted and even quoted your sources.
Lessee, how so? You said one report on water effects was BS but you
didn't ever say why you came to that conclusion. You said another group
was wrong about your denier web site's bias but the only evidence you
presented was from that very denial web site. Hard to be convinced by that.
> So far you have done nothing but insist my sources are shills for big oil
> and refuse to even read a single article a listen to an interview. that
> simple fact speaks volumes about you and the enviro-movement.
Did I miss something? That's not true on several levels.
You might have noticed that I looked at your sources. For what turned
out to be your denial site, I read the overview and a couple of other
pages, and commented on them.
As mentioned, I looked into the background of your denial site which
turned out to have real connections to the fossil fuels industry. Your
ironclad logic is that they say they're OK, and anyway they don't take
much oil money any more. What a relief.
I asked for a specific link for the interview you wanted me to listen to
from your denial site (is that too much to ask?). Still waiting on that.
I'm not planning to listen to all the interviews from January just to
guess which one you meant, sorry, Don.
And I'm halfway through evaluating the other thing, the letter to the
UN, which I'll post in general when I'm done. But I do have a few other
tasks to do today, ya know.
And since when did I become a spokesman for the "enviro-movement"? I'm
just a guy who pays attention to the science behind the issue. I know
it's geeky but I'm into climate science.
I happen to think it's ridiculous when people don't pay attention to the
science, no matter what agenda they are pushing.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> I'm done
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8e781$1@linux...
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> Actually they were initially funded by the University of Alberta and much
>>> their funding came from the oil industry so they were indirectly funded
>>> by the oil industry
>>> http://www.nrsp.com/news.html - sorry, don't remember which interview but
>>> it's there...late summer early fall 07 I believe (either with Lowell
>>> Green or CBC or both)
>> > Same URL - many of their articles and interviews get very specific
>>> same URL - will take you to the article or interview (December 23rd I
>>> believe)
>> So your only support for the validity of this group is the web site from
>> the same group? That's not enough.
>>
>> Looking over their news page it appears to be a long list of cherry picked
>> examples, scapegoating and hyperbole while ignoring most of the evidence.
>>
>> You should widen your horizons.
>>
>>
>>> And lastly comparing the unsafe drinking water in a continent to buying a
>>> puppy a popsicle is a sad and disturbing commentary on the
>>> enviro-movement....
>> What? No it's not. That's just my weird sense of humor.
>>
>> Just trying to point out to you that you set up a false choice there, and
>> it almost doesn't matter what the second choice is, your false choice is
>> merely a rhetorical diversion.
>>
>> Now you're being further diverted by the puppies. What did the puppies
>> ever do to you!!!??? ;^)
>>
>>
>>> in fact they have been accused of using Kyoto etc as a means of keeping
>>> the underdeveloped countries underdeveloped.
>> Yeah, that was in that ridiculously slanted "Swindle" video. Totally
>> specious. If you buy that, you'll buy anything.
>>
>>
>>> Trust me...follow the money, I think you'll be surprised.
>> If you truly want to follow the money Don, you can't ignore the fossil
>> fuel lobby's interest in this issue. Because that's where, by far, the
>> most money is. Including some with your NRSP guys.
>>
>> As with most issues there are a few scammers on all sides, some at the
>> fringes, and some front and center. I denounce them all, how about that!
>> It's looking like your guys are probably in that group, too.
>>
>> But what matters is the scientific evidence. Most of which you appear to
>> be simply ignoring, apparently because a denier web site says "trust us."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95622 is a reply to message #95620] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 17:28 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You looked at my sources...jee thanks...I read yours.
TTYL
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8fabb$1@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> Jamie within the various artlicles are links to several studies, reports
>> and research papers, within the interviews are comments made with backing
>> evidience
>>
>> To date I have read every link you have posted and even quoted your
>> sources.
>
> Lessee, how so? You said one report on water effects was BS but you didn't
> ever say why you came to that conclusion. You said another group was wrong
> about your denier web site's bias but the only evidence you presented was
> from that very denial web site. Hard to be convinced by that.
>
>
>> So far you have done nothing but insist my sources are shills for big oil
>> and refuse to even read a single article a listen to an interview. that
>> simple fact speaks volumes about you and the enviro-movement.
>
> Did I miss something? That's not true on several levels.
>
> You might have noticed that I looked at your sources. For what turned out
> to be your denial site, I read the overview and a couple of other pages,
> and commented on them.
>
> As mentioned, I looked into the background of your denial site which
> turned out to have real connections to the fossil fuels industry. Your
> ironclad logic is that they say they're OK, and anyway they don't take
> much oil money any more. What a relief.
>
> I asked for a specific link for the interview you wanted me to listen to
> from your denial site (is that too much to ask?). Still waiting on that.
> I'm not planning to listen to all the interviews from January just to
> guess which one you meant, sorry, Don.
>
> And I'm halfway through evaluating the other thing, the letter to the UN,
> which I'll post in general when I'm done. But I do have a few other tasks
> to do today, ya know.
>
> And since when did I become a spokesman for the "enviro-movement"? I'm
> just a guy who pays attention to the science behind the issue. I know it's
> geeky but I'm into climate science.
>
> I happen to think it's ridiculous when people don't pay attention to the
> science, no matter what agenda they are pushing.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>> I'm done
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> news:47a8e781$1@linux...
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> Actually they were initially funded by the University of Alberta and
>>>> much their funding came from the oil industry so they were indirectly
>>>> funded by the oil industry
>>>> http://www.nrsp.com/news.html - sorry, don't remember which interview
>>>> but it's there...late summer early fall 07 I believe (either with
>>>> Lowell Green or CBC or both)
>>> > Same URL - many of their articles and interviews get very specific
>>>> same URL - will take you to the article or interview (December 23rd I
>>>> believe)
>>> So your only support for the validity of this group is the web site from
>>> the same group? That's not enough.
>>>
>>> Looking over their news page it appears to be a long list of cherry
>>> picked examples, scapegoating and hyperbole while ignoring most of the
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> You should widen your horizons.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And lastly comparing the unsafe drinking water in a continent to buying
>>>> a puppy a popsicle is a sad and disturbing commentary on the
>>>> enviro-movement....
>>> What? No it's not. That's just my weird sense of humor.
>>>
>>> Just trying to point out to you that you set up a false choice there,
>>> and it almost doesn't matter what the second choice is, your false
>>> choice is merely a rhetorical diversion.
>>>
>>> Now you're being further diverted by the puppies. What did the puppies
>>> ever do to you!!!??? ;^)
>>>
>>>
>>>> in fact they have been accused of using Kyoto etc as a means of keeping
>>>> the underdeveloped countries underdeveloped.
>>> Yeah, that was in that ridiculously slanted "Swindle" video. Totally
>>> specious. If you buy that, you'll buy anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Trust me...follow the money, I think you'll be surprised.
>>> If you truly want to follow the money Don, you can't ignore the fossil
>>> fuel lobby's interest in this issue. Because that's where, by far, the
>>> most money is. Including some with your NRSP guys.
>>>
>>> As with most issues there are a few scammers on all sides, some at the
>>> fringes, and some front and center. I denounce them all, how about that!
>>> It's looking like your guys are probably in that group, too.
>>>
>>> But what matters is the scientific evidence. Most of which you appear to
>>> be simply ignoring, apparently because a denier web site says "trust
>>> us."
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95624 is a reply to message #95622] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 17:57 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> You looked at my sources...jee thanks...I read yours.
But didn't give much back about them. I went to your links and responded.
Now, what is the _actual interview link_ you want me to listen to?
Your other thing is up in General, BTW.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TTYL
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8fabb$1@linux...
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> Jamie within the various artlicles are links to several studies, reports
>>> and research papers, within the interviews are comments made with backing
>>> evidience
>>>
>>> To date I have read every link you have posted and even quoted your
>>> sources.
>> Lessee, how so? You said one report on water effects was BS but you didn't
>> ever say why you came to that conclusion. You said another group was wrong
>> about your denier web site's bias but the only evidence you presented was
>> from that very denial web site. Hard to be convinced by that.
>>
>>
>>> So far you have done nothing but insist my sources are shills for big oil
>>> and refuse to even read a single article a listen to an interview. that
>>> simple fact speaks volumes about you and the enviro-movement.
>> Did I miss something? That's not true on several levels.
>>
>> You might have noticed that I looked at your sources. For what turned out
>> to be your denial site, I read the overview and a couple of other pages,
>> and commented on them.
>>
>> As mentioned, I looked into the background of your denial site which
>> turned out to have real connections to the fossil fuels industry. Your
>> ironclad logic is that they say they're OK, and anyway they don't take
>> much oil money any more. What a relief.
>>
>> I asked for a specific link for the interview you wanted me to listen to
>> from your denial site (is that too much to ask?). Still waiting on that.
>> I'm not planning to listen to all the interviews from January just to
>> guess which one you meant, sorry, Don.
>>
>> And I'm halfway through evaluating the other thing, the letter to the UN,
>> which I'll post in general when I'm done. But I do have a few other tasks
>> to do today, ya know.
>>
>> And since when did I become a spokesman for the "enviro-movement"? I'm
>> just a guy who pays attention to the science behind the issue. I know it's
>> geeky but I'm into climate science.
>>
>> I happen to think it's ridiculous when people don't pay attention to the
>> science, no matter what agenda they are pushing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>> I'm done
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47a8e781$1@linux...
>>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>>> Actually they were initially funded by the University of Alberta and
>>>>> much their funding came from the oil industry so they were indirectly
>>>>> funded by the oil industry
>>>>> http://www.nrsp.com/news.html - sorry, don't remember which interview
>>>>> but it's there...late summer early fall 07 I believe (either with
>>>>> Lowell Green or CBC or both)
>>>> > Same URL - many of their articles and interviews get very specific
>>>>> same URL - will take you to the article or interview (December 23rd I
>>>>> believe)
>>>> So your only support for the validity of this group is the web site from
>>>> the same group? That's not enough.
>>>>
>>>> Looking over their news page it appears to be a long list of cherry
>>>> picked examples, scapegoating and hyperbole while ignoring most of the
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> You should widen your horizons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And lastly comparing the unsafe drinking water in a continent to buying
>>>>> a puppy a popsicle is a sad and disturbing commentary on the
>>>>> enviro-movement....
>>>> What? No it's not. That's just my weird sense of humor.
>>>>
>>>> Just trying to point out to you that you set up a false choice there,
>>>> and it almost doesn't matter what the second choice is, your false
>>>> choice is merely a rhetorical diversion.
>>>>
>>>> Now you're being further diverted by the puppies. What did the puppies
>>>> ever do to you!!!??? ;^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> in fact they have been accused of using Kyoto etc as a means of keeping
>>>>> the underdeveloped countries underdeveloped.
>>>> Yeah, that was in that ridiculously slanted "Swindle" video. Totally
>>>> specious. If you buy that, you'll buy anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me...follow the money, I think you'll be surprised.
>>>> If you truly want to follow the money Don, you can't ignore the fossil
>>>> fuel lobby's interest in this issue. Because that's where, by far, the
>>>> most money is. Including some with your NRSP guys.
>>>>
>>>> As with most issues there are a few scammers on all sides, some at the
>>>> fringes, and some front and center. I denounce them all, how about that!
>>>> It's looking like your guys are probably in that group, too.
>>>>
>>>> But what matters is the scientific evidence. Most of which you appear to
>>>> be simply ignoring, apparently because a denier web site says "trust
>>>> us."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95628 is a reply to message #95625] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 19:10 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil, what's up?
Don asked me to look at a letter to the UN, I told him I'd look at it
and post a reply in General. Now I have. There's no big conspiracy there.
Also, there's no "hijacking." Look back again, I wasn't the one to bring
up climate change in these threads.
Like you, I replied to it. I have an interest in the issue, as
apparently you do, too.
You're welcome to join us in general. I don't bite, much, but I can't
speak for Don. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Your other thing is up in General, BTW.
>
>
> Not content with hijacking this entire board, Jamie now moves
> over to another one on this server... please, please, nobody
> post any tube gear they're trying to unload on the "for sale"
> section, otherwise he'll take that board over too, with a
> series of 8,700 web links that claim a direct correlation
> between the heat emissions of tube gear in New Zealand
> & increases in the number of icebergs calving off the Ross Ice
> Shelf in Antarctica.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95630 is a reply to message #95628] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 20:56 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Neil, what's up?
What's up? Well... "Up" is a Shania Twain album:
http://www.amazon.com/Up-Shania-Twain/dp/B00006IX86
Or a Peter Gabriel album:
http://www.amazon.com/Up-Peter-Gabriel/dp/B00006F7S3
Or, apparently, also a relatively obscure band from the last
decade:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hzfwxquj ldhe
Or the URL for the Union Pacific Railroad:
http://www.up.com/
Or, also the URL (with a different suffix, of course) of the
university of Portland:
http://www.up.edu/
Or, shorthand slanguage for Michigan's Upper Peninsula (The "U.P." - kinda
like "The O.C.", i guess.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan
http://www.uptravel.com/
There, read all that shit & get back to me with a response,
willya? I mean, it ALL must be true, because I saw it on the
internet, right?
(look familiar???)
<SQUAK!!!>
(was that a parrot???)
>Also, there's no "hijacking." Look back again, I wasn't the one to bring
>up climate change in these threads.
<rant>
No, Don brought it up- jokingly... and you opportunistically
stepped in as you always do & took over the thread to the
extent where (and yes, sure, people responded) the entire board
was nothing but a giant global-warming thread. Now I don't care
if people talk about politics here, or religion, or Deejay's
dogs, or their health, or their enjoyment of the chronic, or
goddamn near ANYTHING except when YOU get involved in anything
relating to an extra drop of rain falling in Sumatra this year,
because without fail, NONE of those other topics ever takes
over the whole fucking board, but without fail, you always
somehow manage to. Those other non-musical topics are
peripherally interesting and always transient... you get a
thread going & it never fails to fucking turn into a thread
buildup akin to something like we've seen here since
the shitstorm that proceeded our buildup to the invasion of
Iraq. No shit!
</rant>
Now, if someone wants to scold me on my rant - game on, let's
go.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95633 is a reply to message #95630] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 20:26 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nice rant, Neil. Wow, you're really bothered. Sorry about that, nothing
I've posted has been meant in any kind of mean spirit.
None of my links have been random, but rather pointers to further
reading if anyone wants to check the evidence. But you don't have to
follow them if you're simply not interested.
Again, though, you're welcome to join us on the General board.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Neil, what's up?
>
> What's up? Well... "Up" is a Shania Twain album:
> http://www.amazon.com/Up-Shania-Twain/dp/B00006IX86
>
> Or a Peter Gabriel album:
> http://www.amazon.com/Up-Peter-Gabriel/dp/B00006F7S3
>
> Or, apparently, also a relatively obscure band from the last
> decade:
> http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hzfwxquj ldhe
>
> Or the URL for the Union Pacific Railroad:
> http://www.up.com/
>
> Or, also the URL (with a different suffix, of course) of the
> university of Portland:
> http://www.up.edu/
>
> Or, shorthand slanguage for Michigan's Upper Peninsula (The "U.P." - kinda
> like "The O.C.", i guess.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan
> http://www.uptravel.com/
>
>
> There, read all that shit & get back to me with a response,
> willya? I mean, it ALL must be true, because I saw it on the
> internet, right?
>
> (look familiar???)
>
> <SQUAK!!!>
>
> (was that a parrot???)
>
>
>> Also, there's no "hijacking." Look back again, I wasn't the one to bring
>
>> up climate change in these threads.
>
> <rant>
> No, Don brought it up- jokingly... and you opportunistically
> stepped in as you always do & took over the thread to the
> extent where (and yes, sure, people responded) the entire board
> was nothing but a giant global-warming thread. Now I don't care
> if people talk about politics here, or religion, or Deejay's
> dogs, or their health, or their enjoyment of the chronic, or
> goddamn near ANYTHING except when YOU get involved in anything
> relating to an extra drop of rain falling in Sumatra this year,
> because without fail, NONE of those other topics ever takes
> over the whole fucking board, but without fail, you always
> somehow manage to. Those other non-musical topics are
> peripherally interesting and always transient... you get a
> thread going & it never fails to fucking turn into a thread
> buildup akin to something like we've seen here since
> the shitstorm that proceeded our buildup to the invasion of
> Iraq. No shit!
> </rant>
>
> Now, if someone wants to scold me on my rant - game on, let's
> go.
>
> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95640 is a reply to message #95541] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 21:19 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was the
date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? . . . I
THINK NOT! ;>)
Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon foot
print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much more
I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups are
generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
Tony
On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> Tony Benson wrote:
>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>
> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>
> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
> we know.
>
>
>> We really are
>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>
> It's important to realize that's not true.
>
> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>
> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
> atmosphere.
>
> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>
>
>> Short
>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization" life
>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>
> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>
>
>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>> preaching.
>
> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the more
> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science, the
> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
> working to mitigate.
>
>
>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>
> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
> the dice.
>
>
>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain our
>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by candlelight
>> anytime soon.
>
> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
> like horses. :^)
>
> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
> efficient technologies.
>
> Here are a few different perspectives:
> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>
> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>
> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>
> Especially this article:
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>
> Worth a trip to the library.
>
>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>
> What did the Mayan's say?
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Neil wrote:
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global warming
>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>
>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate scientists
>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>
>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>
>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>>>
>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>
>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang in
>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>
>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>
>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>> this?
>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>
>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's more
>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>
>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Neil
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95646 is a reply to message #95640] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 23:36 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Tony Benson wrote:
> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was the
> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? . . . I
> THINK NOT! ;>)
Heh. I'll have to look into that, maybe they were on to something. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon foot
> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much more
> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups are
> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>
> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
> Tony
>
>
> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>
>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>> we know.
>>
>>
>>> We really are
>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>
>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>
>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>
>>
>>> Short
>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization" life
>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>
>>
>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>> preaching.
>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the more
>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science, the
>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
>> working to mitigate.
>>
>>
>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
>> the dice.
>>
>>
>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain our
>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by candlelight
>>> anytime soon.
>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
>> like horses. :^)
>>
>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>> efficient technologies.
>>
>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>
>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>
>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>
>> Especially this article:
>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>
>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>
>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global warming
>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>
>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate scientists
>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>
>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>
>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>>>>
>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>
>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang in
>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>
>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>
>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>> this?
>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>
>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's more
>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 06:08:34 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.12897 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
