Because the guy is so dumb he doesn't know the difference between a claim
and a report. I simply reported what was said on the news. In some respects
reporting what was said on CBS is a citation. But I'm sure that sort of
thing is way beyond his level of understanding.
Look at that he's quoting from data that is at least seventeen years old.
My, that's really cutting edge science. But lets just look at it logically.
Humans have been deforesting the planet for several hundred years. In North
America alone there were dense forests all the way from the east coast to
the Midwest. They have all been cut down. The Amazon rain forests are being
cut at a rapid pace and at the same time billions of humans have been born
and have been burning unbelievable amounts of fossil fuels. Put the
production of millions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere
every year with the deforestation of the planet and how could you not have
an increase of CO2?
You know, all the guys who question the facts about global warming and the
scientists with Ph.Ds up the ying yang are right winger types. Boy are they
skeptical. They don't accept a word or believe anything without tons of
citations and reams of proof, and then they're still not sure to believe it.
But let an uneducated talk radio guy like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh say
something and they accept it as if it came from Jesus himself. There is no
question of any of it as long as it comes from one of their conservative
heroes. Funny really. Too bad they don't use the same sense of distrust when
it comes to their radio icons. Rush could tell them the moon is made of
green cheese and that would be it. They would go to their graves thinking
the moon was made of cheese. Makes one wonder what makes people act like
Ayup, and now they are saying that hurricane Dean is headed for the Gulf
coast. Where do they get off saying stuff like that. You can't believe
anything they say right? They're probably making that up and the scientific
report that told about the increase in CO2, why, that's probably just made
up too. It was probably done by liberal scientists anyway. Why do they even
have network news when none of it is ever true?
Many years ago my dad had the flu, sick as a dog. I came into the parents
room as dad had mom's new digital thermometer in his mouth. I said to mom:
"I borrowed your new digital thermometer yesterday." And while looking dad
in the eye, I said: "Oh, it's an oral thermometer tooooo?" I'd have sold
my soul for a camera at that instant.
It's for people like you, Hawke. And, in case you haven't heard, the
current hurricane, like all others, is being caused by George Bush in
conjunction with the oil companies to drive up gas prices.
Dean is headed in the general direction of the Gulf of Mexico (they all
do at first), but nobody can predict with any certainty where it will
actually go. Hurricanes are like a knuckleball with spit on it, nobody
has a clue where it will end up. If you will recall, previous
hurricanes have gone straight when the climatologist said they would
curve, have curved when they said they would go straight and have
completely hooked back upon themselves. The only thing you can really
do is sit back and wait and see. The forecasts of hurricane direction
are only good for the 12 hours preceeding the storm. Beyond that it's
anybody's guess where the things will go, or how many there will be, or
how strong they will be.
Next you'll be mentioning the... the.... the.... dreaded 'GEE'
word...it's it's a greeeeenhouse gas, oh my god run for it!!!
Then the VLA, the Vegetable Liberation Army, a radical PETA splinter
group will be calling for the destruction of all greenhouses as these
structures surly must be the source of these dreaded gases. But first
we'll have to repatriate all the plants back to their native habitats of
Atmospheric CO2 levels are way below 500 ppm, farting cows would seem to
be a bigger problem.
I can't say one way or the other about the whole 'global warming' issue,
but I do know the news media loves to stir up a little mass hysteria
whenever it can.
As Gunner says, they're all faith-based believers.
I have to plead agnosticism on this issue. I certainly don't know enough
about the science to have much of an opinion.
It's sometimes entertaining to see Larry or one of the other skeptical
libertarians try to make a scientific case opposed to the mainstream
global-warming scenario. They're smart guys, but they aren't that smart
about all of the subjects on which they hold forth. And it's obvious from
the way they select their "evidence" that their method is "draw conclusions
first, and then find some data that seems to support it." Today, finding
such data is almost always easy.
The entire herd of keyboard-tapping Googleists have really changed the tenor
of these discussions. Today, you can find some smoke-blowing "authority" to
support any position on any issue. It's a piece of cake to confound logic,
legitimate research, and a century of serious science on anything, if you
think your audience doesn't know any more than you do, and doesn't have tens
of hours, the research skills, nor the inclination to go look it all up and
study enough to know what they're talking about.
It even works on simple subjects, like the definition of "atheist," if they
can blow enough smoke, repeat their baloney a hundred times, and ignore
something as simple as following-through on the definitions of a few key
I know Gunner's methods (he's improved his methodology and he's lightened
up, but I don't know if he's just mellowing with age) and I've been
observing Stuart's. Stuart is still in a fairly primitive stage, in which
bluster is an essential ingredient of his method. For example, he's Googled
enough to know there are prescriptive dictionaries and descriptive ones, and
that the old-time grammarians scoff at the descriptive ones. But he didn't
read enough to learn which was which -- he got Webster's exactly
backwards -- and he probably doesn't know that almost everything is going
descriptive (including the holy grail of American scholarly style, the Univ.
of Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, and the Oxford English
Dictionary), nor why that is so. He didn't expect that a member here has
been involved with this subject on an almost daily basis for over 30 years,
as an editor for one of the world's largest publishers and also the world's
fourth-largest medical/science communications agency. Stuart started with
the bluster and opprobrium but, you may have noticed, he suddenly stopped
short and reverted to his original, less academic assertions.
My guess is that he Googled some more and found out that he had it
upside-down. The interesting thing to observe about Stuart's approach is
that his reaction in these cases is to ignore the issue and turn up the
bluster another notch, apparently hoping to distract attention from the fact
that he's just stuck his foot about 18 inches down his throat.
There was a time when these discussions were carried on in the spirit of
learning and sharing information, but ideology seems to have permeated
everything and turned most discussions into a battle. "Google is your
friend," Gunner used to say. In fact, it can work either way. It can be your
friend if you're honestly trying to uncover the facts. Or it can be just the
friend you need if you need logistic support for a misdirected argument, one
who supplies your ammunition so you can keep shooting no matter whether your
point is based on good judgment or just an ideological commitment. It's not
nearly as informative about facts but it gives us some insights into human
Hurricanes themselves are the fault of liberals, God's payback for granting
women the right to vote. There were no hurricanes before the 19th Amendment
was passed. You can look it up on Google.
Unfortunately, that is a load of crap, and it is rapidly edging out "I won't
cum in your mouth" as the world's second most repeated lie.
The USGS has this to say about it;
The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was the world's largest in more than
half a century and probably the second largest of the century. Its roughly 5
km3 of erupted magma is an order of magnitude greater than the volume of
magma erupted in 1980 from Mount St. Helens but is smaller than the 13+-3
km3 (DRE) of ignimbrite and fall deposits from the 1912 eruption of
Novarupta, Alaska (Fierstein and Hildreth, 1992).
The climactic eruption injected approximately 17 Mt of SO2 into the
atmosphere (Gerlach and others, this volume), generating atmospheric and
climatic effects that are likely to persist for several years (Hansen and
others, 1992). Gerlach and others (this volume) concluded that virtually all
of this SO2 as well as Cl, CO2, and an appreciable volume of water
(approximately 96 Mt) had accumulated prior to eruption in a vapor phase in
volatile-saturated magma of a crustal reservoir. A large additional volume
(about 6.25 wt%) of water was in solution in the melt phase of the magma
reservoir. Gerlach and others estimate that, in addition to the measured 17
Mt of SO2, the eruption of approximately 5 km3 of magma was accompanied by
release of at least 491 to 921 Mt of H2O, 3 to 16 Mt of Cl, and 42 to 234 Mt
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million
tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year
(Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine
volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities,
including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to
about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al.,
2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount
of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional
volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!
(Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the
Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into
space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following
the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of
So, to recap.
The average annual CO2 output of all volcanic activity is estimated to be
about .75% of man's output.
Mt Pinatubo, (the largest volcanic eruption in 50 years) produced less than
1% of man's annual output.
Large volcanoes do affect global climate, but they spew other stuff that
blocks sunlight. As a result, they lead to global cooling, not global
I do agree with the tree stuff, though.
But you have to stop buying cheap Chinese hardwood products as well.
Paul K. Dickman
You know, all the guys who promulgate the speculation-masquerading-as-facts
about global warming are left winger types. Boy are they credulous. They
accept and believe everything without any citations or proof at all, and
they're sure to believe it even in the face of contrary evidence.
But let an uneducated politician like AlGore say something, and folks like
Pigeon accept it as if it came from Jesus himself. There is no question of any
of it as long as it comes from one of their liberal heroes. Funny really. Too
bad they're so gullible on everything. AlGore could tell them the moon is made
of green cheese and that would be it. They would go to their graves ... etc
Gee, ED my muscle cars caused all of this GW crap am I sorry, hell no
it's been the coolest summer in TX in many years & my electric bill
shows that, got to do another burn out to help . It's only 87
degrees right now at 12:00 noon. Used to be about 105+.
Funny, ED, but think about this maybe GW is caused by to many F'in
people, you see people are what 98.7 degrees? Put 100 in a room & it
gets hotter, well add a couple of many of billions of people & it
should make the globe warmer. The truth they don't want to say, after
all who will pay for the carbon credits? Follow the money ED, you saw
that in the big Pharma drug deal in washington. One place on the
internet said if I would send them 50.00 I will be forgiven for
driving 3 muscle cars for 6 months! I guess they will send ice cubes
to the sky. ED you are even older than me, remember the ice age we
were going to in 1974, it's all BS that someone makes money off of it.
Now the cities are even getting into it having to raise fee's to help
fight GW, free money. BTW have you paid your "Carbon tax" for your
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:53:09 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Why
Southern Oregon is experiencing a 20% cooler summer this year. I love
it! Today it's 80F (26.7C for you furriners), last year on this date
it was 98F (36.7C for the aliens. ;)
Not that this has anything more in common with GW(kumbaya) than some
silly and inaccurate climate models they're praying to.
After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Gunner wrote on Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:16:53
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
When was "CO2" discovered? That is to say, when was the molecular
compound "carbon dioxide" recognized to be the product of combustion &
metabolism, as opposed to "phlogisticated air"? Considering that oxygen
was discovered by Lavoisier in 1778 (Priestly had discovered
"dephlogisticated air" in 1775), was "carbon dioxide" even known of in
the 17th century?
Can't measure what you don't know exists, ya reckon?
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Hey! They're the ones making the outageous claim, let them back them up!
What are their sources? Where did they get their numbers? Did they
cherry-pick the historical data? Exactly what scientific method did
they use to reach this hysterical, alarmist conclusion?
Show me your sources, please, and not "CBS News".