Octane ratings.....what's the truth?

Yawn. I was hoping that you had something factual to back up your rantings. Apparentely you do not. If I wanted algore's crap, that, I could find easy enough. Was looking for actual science, you see, and since you seem to pretend you have same, asked you for it.

Show me one example, in the last dozen years, of me saying to somoene and then responding to posts from the same address. Hint: you can't.

I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch.

It's obvious you have nothing to add to this conversation.

One batch of idiots a while back claimed the earth was flat, so I saw no reason to believe the next batch who said it was round.

Then there was the batch who claimed the sun orbited the earth, so obviously it made no sense to pay attention to the batch who said it didn't...

That's a pretty intellectually bankrupt position, Dave. Just because one theory is proved wrong doesn't mean all future theories are wrong. New data and new understanding give better insights into the workings of very complex systems.

Do we have the ultimate understanding now? Of course not, and we're very unlikely to anytime soon. But we think we have a good handle on what's happening, and a significant number of experts believe there is cause to get very worried. (No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm not offering to do your research for you, since you'd probably reject it anyway.)

Many of the things that would make sense to do if global warming IS real, also make sense if you're starting to run short on energy supplies and starting to overpopulate your planet. Which, surprise, we are. So even if it turns out global warming was a false alarm, reducing our energy usage and pollution footprint is a smart thing to do anyway.

You're missing my point. I believed the last batch of idiots because, at the time, authority figures told me to do so. I was 10. This time I'm older and want to get solid data before just blindly accepting what the claims are. Yet, every time I ask for it, people like Bob get all pissed off that I dare to ask for solid data.

Great. So tell you what. How about YOU send me to a reputable site with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving.

Show me the science.

Why is it that asking for data elicits such a response from people like you?

SHOW ME.

Yeah, no shit. Now get back to global warming. Show me the data.

Dave Hinz wrote:

OK, here are several:

Vostok ice cores show CO2 levels have jumped 20% within the last 100 years, to levels not seen in the last half-million years.

I don't think anyone has any rational explanation for the sudden and unprecedented (within the last 500k years) spike in CO2, unless it is caused by human activity. Given the amount of fossil fuels that humans burn, it would be hard to argue humans AREN'T causing the spike in CO2. Coal releases about 200lbs of CO2 per million BTUs when completely burned

If we assume the carbon in oil and natural gas burns in a similar way, and also produces about 200lbs per million BTUs, we can then use the current annual world fossil-fuel consumption of 200 * 10^15 BTUs to estimate a yearly dump of 4*10^13 pounds (20 BILLION TONS) of CO2 from oil, coal, and gas. If I'm figuring right, that works out to about 6667 pounds of CO2 per year -- weighing as much as a Hummer H2!! -- for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Of course, since North American accounts for about HALF of that consumption, that is about SIX Hummer's worth of CO2 per person in North America. This is far more than, for example, volcanic sources; man-made sources create 150x more CO2 than volcanic sources And it only started happening about 100-120 years ago. So I think we have to assume humans have caused the spike in CO2 levels. So why worry about CO2 levels? In the ice-core record, temperatures are highly correlated to CO2 levels. No one knows for sure what's cause and what's effect, but in the past the two track pretty closely.

In the last 100 years, temps have increased consistently with CO2 increases, and we established above that the CO2 increases are almost certainly man-made. This is not a proof, but does strongly indicate man- made CO2 increases are driving the temperature increases.

One of the projected impacts of climate change is an increase in sea level. This chart shows the observed increase in sea level over the last

15 years. Not only are sea levels rising, but the rate of change is accelerating. Another projected impact of global warming is increased number and severity of tropical storms. I could keep going, but that's what I found in about 20 minutes of searching. This is all good, solid data. No abuse or alarmist handwaving. Satisfied?

If you want to look at computer modeling -- which is of course based on theory rather than hard observational data -- here's a comparison of two models simulating global climate. One includes only *natural* drivers (sun, volcanic emissions, etc), while the other includes man-made drivers (human-produced greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols). Guess which one matches the observed temperatures.

Now I've done your homework for you, or at least enough to demonstrate that there IS a lot of cold, hard data supporting the global-warming argument. I leave it to you to either bury your head in the sand and ignore all this data, or admit that there seems to be something going on here. Even if your 5th grade teacher was wrong.

(snip of really good info)

Gives me a bunch to read. Thanks; that's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to get.

Gary, going from helpful to arrogant doesn't help you make your point.

Ahhhh...good feeling's gone.

Not pissed off at all Dave. Just want you to do your own work - it's your planet too. You need to get over this thing from the 70's though, its really handicapping you.

Because people have seen you work before? Because you're expecting others to do the research for you? Because the very fact that you post "people like you" tells us where you are going with this?

Sorry Dave. But I lost any good feeling when you insisted other people do your work for you. You could have spent the time you used to say "show me, find it for me, I refuse to believe this and I refuse to look for myself" to find more info than I presented here.

Then why do you keep nymshifting and crawling out of the killfile?

I think it was caused by termites. There's a freeking lot of them. Prove me wrong.

Citing a few web sites hardly qualifies as research. Well, maybe it does at some colleges... but it isn't. Really.

Actually, my associates and I have recently applied for Federal funding for a grant to research that global warming is caused by the flatulence produced from human vegan diets.

and stay away from the green acid too!

Here is a source of unbiased information - a book titled "Trashing The Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray.

Maybe so. It would also have been much less antagonistic if you'd just said "I've tried googling for 'global warming' and all I get is biased sites. How can I find some unbiased information?" See how different that is from

Possible. Communication over Usenet is infamous for that. What say we agree to assume positive motives on the other guy's part, and bury the hatchet. Sniping at each other doesn't help anybody. Pax.

Gary

I don't nymshift for you Dave, you think too much of yourself.

Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Wednesday, May 2nd The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate CNN Headline News Channel

Now there's an unbiased source.

More?:

A book titled "Trashing the Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray