Re: The sky is falling

Freon was patented in 1934. Patents are for 17 years. Freon was not under patent in the 1970s. It was made by several companies.

A total lie. And you might look at the Nobel Prize this won.

Uh, there are many different refrigerants made and in use today, not one.

Nature's production of CO2 has been in equilibrium for millenia. It's the putting of carbon which has been out of the cycle for millions of years (fossil fuels) into the atmosphere that has upset the natural equilibrium.

Most community colleges offer intro science classes for low cost; try taking one.

Not much lightning up there, most is down here within about 10 miles of the surface.

This is from Wikipedia:

"Ozone layer

Main article: Ozone layer

The highest levels of ozone in the atmosphere are in the stratosphere, in a region also known as the ozone layer between about 10 km and 50 km above the surface (or between 6.21 and 31.1 miles). Here it filters out photons with shorter wavelengths (less than 320 nm) of ultraviolet light, also called UV rays, (270 to 400 nm) from the Sun that would be harmful to most forms of life in large doses. These same wavelengths are also among those responsible for the production of vitamin D, which is essential for human health. Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen:

O2 + photon(radiation< 240 nm) ? 2 O

O + O2 ? O3

It is destroyed by the reaction with atomic oxygen:

O3 + O ? 2 O2

(See Ozone-oxygen cycle for more detail.)"

Kind of backs up what I said.

Jack

That may be one opinion but it is not correct. They were indeed predicting that pollution was cooling the earth. We where being taught that by our Profs, as far back in the late forties when I was in college studying engineering and up into the mid seventies. One of the solutions suggested was placing carbon black on the northern glacier to speed up melting to cool the oceans. Then, as now, we were told if we did not do something within ten years it would be too late

If any logical person looks at all of the natural forces that effect the earth, the sun, tectonic activity, volcanic activity, the relation ship of the sun and earth over time, as well as the naturally occurring changes in the level of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere, over billions of years long before man walked the earth and the passed history or warming and cooling, and puts them into an equation, against mans expended use of carbon fuels over the past 100 years, that would lead any thinking person to a logical conclusion that a barely measurable increase of a gas that comprises less than .004% of the atmosphere to be the reason WHY the climate changes? LOL

You certainly are entitled to you own opinion no mater how convoluted it may be LOL

And shrinking and growing and shrinking... Funny - You absolutely NEVER hear of the hole in the ozone layer anymore. Could it be because of reports like this?:

Jeff - you broke the first rule of being a good environmentalist: Never ever mention something that has proven to be bad science. Always cherry pick the information and data. Once something has proven to be an embarrassment, deny that it was ever important to the cause.

Let's see - hole in the ozone layer, snow pack in the Cascade mountains, temperature rise preceded CO2 increase (instead of the opposite that is always portrayed by the high priests of GW, all scientists who worked with the IPCC on its report agreeing with the methodology and conclusions in the report, 1934 - the coldest year on record

and Damn. Pretty soon you environmentalists are going to run out of things that you're not allowed to bring up because they've been proven to be false science. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Anything you agree with you call science. Sorry - not how it works.

Yes - we're very aware of how you and your ilk pick and choose their "scientists" just like you pick and choose (and, when needed, fabricate) your data.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Oh - Mike! You should know the answer to that one! It's something like:

"It's not a matter of my opinion. It's what the real scientists are saying. And any scientist who disagrees is not a real scientist. So therefore 100% of all real scientists agree with what I'm saying."

Of course they fail to bring up how many times more carbon is put out by one volcano eruption. But in their minds, those carbon molecules aren't the same since they are in the "natural cycle of things". Carbon molecules that man touches somehow have a different effect (it's magic).

I keep tell> You certainly are entitled to you own opinion no mater how convoluted it may > be LOL

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

It is not "opinion" -- check it out. See if you can find a scientific journal article predicting cooling. Find a copy of the Newsweek article and read it.

Yeah, who would think a tiny virus could kill a big person? Who would think an electron could tunnel through a barrier? Well, people who bother to learn science, as compared to spouting right-wing propaganda, would.

this?:

So ... banning CFCs is starting to have an effect, and you interpret that to there never being a problem in the first place? So if you have a fever and take aspirin, and your fever comes down, you never had that fever.

No it did not.

Sorry, not globally -- that's 2005.

So you do not know the difference between the lower 48 states and the globe. What an indictment of our educational system.

Yeah, just every scientific organization, every scientific agency, and over 99% of all scientists are on my side. Oh the woe!

I never heard about landing men on the Moon much after Apollo 14 either. People have short attention spans. Your point only says something about people, not science.

David A. Smith

I guess one can choose whom they want to believe LOL

this?:

I don't think even you favorite "scientists" are claiming that. It's part of the natural cycle the "hole" goes thru.

And if I painted my toenails purple and the fever goes down, then it must have gone down because I painted my toenails purple. Green or blue might work too, but that hasn't been scientifically proven. But I did prove that purple paint on the toenails will work.

Saying it does not make it so. Fact is it did.

Funny how all-fired important the NASA data was for proving GLOBAL WARMING when it was wrong, but now that it has been corrected, it doesn't apply anymore.

So - let's see - we have "scientifically proven" that the whole world is warming, excpet the U.S. is not. Hmmm. I keep hearing that the U.S. is warming too along with the rest of the world. So which is it?

Why don't you tell the people what the data (suspect as it is) shows as far as how much of a temperature rise the earth has experienced on average in the last 100 years - just how much *IS* that temperature rise? Now - the only caveat is that you can't do what you and your favorite "scientists" usually do in answering a question like this - don't take some cherry-picked local minimum from 100 years ago and some cherry-picked local maximum from recent history and take the difference to exaggerate what you want exaggerated - IOW - do it like a real scientist would do it - not like a global warming scientist would do it.

Truth is, Lloyd, there's such a thing as data uncertainty, and the very little temperature change that is claimed over the last 100 years is much smaller than the uncertainty of the claimed measurements. The NASA correction just from the error of one sensor averaged in with a bunch of others illustrated that point very well. Also - frankly - the people doing these measurements are motivated to prove global warming, and I don't trust them not to have influenced the readings in other places by any number of methods (similar to a placebo effect). And I'm not saying it necessarily has to be intentional. Some influences might be unknown and unintentional - like someone moving a nearby air conditioner, or hundreds of other very local changes that humans would not pick up on. And there is the possible factor of intentional dishonesty that has happened repeatedly in data that we do know about. What about the ones that we don't know about but that we just keep on believing because it's "science", and who can argue with "science".

OK - so you're admitting right here and now that the U.S. is not warming with the rest of the world. You truly are a dishonest idiot.

Umm - sorry. You're just fooling yourself with that. Not fooling anybody else, but definitely yourself if you truly believe that their's

99+% agreement. True scientists are not limited to just the scientists that agree with what you want them to agree with like you'd have people believe. In fact, more the opposite is true.

But thanks for the revelation that the whole world is warming except for the U.S. I'm sure we'll see that in the next IPCC report (in fact I'm sure the NASA gaff will not be mentioned). And maybe you can receive a joint Nobel prize with Al Gore on that one, and 117.94857% (that number will be provable by "scientifically collected data" and special "calculation" by global warming scientists) of all the world's scientists will agree with you, therefore it must be true.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

snip

snip

Some of the sensors used to collect the temperature readings that "prove" global warming haven't been moved to meet the NOAA standards in years. The standards boil down to placing the sensor in an open field, not in direct sunlight, near slabs of concrete or close to hot air exhausts from A/C units. The sensors were originally sited in the

1940's and 1950's. Urban areas have grown up around them to the point where some of the sensors are in the middle of a parking lot or tucked in close to A/C units. In short, the temperature data collected from them is false.

However, people like Lloyd and Jeff already have their minds made up. Presenting them with facts will just confuse them and cause them to attack you personally.

Jack

Jack, because we have come to different conclusions that you doesn't mean that our minds are made. I continue to follow the developments about what is known about climate change and make my conclusions based on all available data. And, if the data indicate a different conclusion, then I will make a different conclusion.

But for you to conclude that someone else's mind is made up is just asinine.

And, I have not attacked you personally.

Jeff

this?:

> So ... banning CFCs is starting to have an effect, and you interpret> > that to there never being a problem in the first place?>

No it isn't. CFCs were proven to be the cause. As I said, they don't award Nobel Prizes for guesswork.

Not this time.

No. The correction was to temp. of the lower 48 US states. Globally,

2005 is the hottest year on record. Even in the lower 48 states, 4 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1990.

No it is not. If you look at the 5-year and 10-year averages, the US is warming too. You can't pick out just 1 year and say everything after that is cooling. 1 year is often an anomaly, which is why you look at averages.

Well, you could try reading some science and find out.

Look at

Note # 12 and # 17

Totally false.

OK, now you're flat-out lying.

So who the hell cares? Guess what? Science does not depend on the acceptance of idiots to work.

Look at a damn graph!

Go to the scientific literature.

Go to the scientific literature.

Find one scientific agency or group that agrees with you. Just one.

Yeah, too bad I just present you with facts and you refuse to accept them. You're a flat-earther.

Want proof that they indeed do? Check out who won the 2007 prize.

This whole thing is laughable.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Other than your personal opinion of the theories of others, what qualifications do you have that would lead anyone in this NG to believe you are in a position to speak intelligently on the subject of CO2 in the atmosphere and it effects on average global temperature?

Can you point us to the "science" that proves C02 in the atmosphere can demonstrate the ability to hold more heat? Or that any small change, in its less than .004 percent in the atmosphere, can effect a change? Where is the science to prove that any efforts happening today, or in the future by man has or will have, ANY effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere that will affect the planets earths average temperature?