Hi Jim, I have yet to find the link to the program that shows the scientific data that proves humans are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. I am at work and the Discovery Channel website alone has enough to wade through. But it is the same data that the vast majority of scientists agree on that proves global warming is being influenced by humans. Influenced to the point where it is tipping the CO2 scales and causing global warming or exacerbating it. Now, one can either rummage through thousands of pages of scientific data or one can watch a one hour science program that tells you the same thing. And I have seen enough science programs and read enough about this to know when corporate entities are trying to dupe me. I will post the link when or if I can find it. Don, I do not see what the earlier epochs and periods of Earth history have to do with modern atmospheric data. In the carboniferous period, there were massive volcanoes too. That would indeed place a huge amount of CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere. But there were also 3 foot diameter spiders and dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans. So what? I don't see your point. When volcanoes are going crazy... unlike today, you would expect massive influxes of these gases. Also, anyone can name a scientist or two that would agree with their views. Two or three scientists disagreeing with man-made global warming does not constitute evidence against the overwhelming data that says man-made global warming exists. That is like saying the fundamentalist Christians have refuted evolution because they can disprove the Java man fossils. It does not stand up against the overwhelming majority of collected data that says global warming is either caused or greatly exacerbated by humans. As far as attacking the messenger... when the messenger is the fossil fuel lobby, yes, I will attack it. I understand BP is trying to move in the direction of cleaner energy. But please, do not insult me by implying the petroleum industry and lobbyists are looking after the best interests of human kind. Profits off of fossil fuels are there biggest objective. And Exxon... come on. Every year they make billions in profits and still receive billions in tax breaks. Until the petroleum industry is willing to move part and parcel beyond technologies that have not changed for over one hundred years, I will rail against them. They are not my friends. Green energy is attainable and profitable. The fossil fuel industry has the ability to move us into cleaner energy sources. And so much more can be done by these corporate giants. But they want to wring out the very last drop of profit at our expense. And the very fact that we are discussing this makes me think that their propaganda has convinced some to think that we can keep using petroleum like it is going out of style. Well... you know what? It is going out of style... and quantity. The only question is... how much damage will we do to the Earth before we learn a very hard and serious lesson? By the way... I love this discussion. Jon
Jon, You wrote “…shows the scientific data that proves humans are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere.” You don’t have to prove that to me. I already believe it, but you nor anyone knows what it really means. You have no point of reference. You also wrote “Don, I do not see what the earlier epochs and periods of Earth history have to do with modern atmospheric data.” To me, with respect, you are not seeing what I think I see. I see various forces undulating in a somewhat sinusoidal fashion (too complicated for me to explain or fully understand) that have caused global worming and cooling over eons. If we don’t know what those trends are with some confidence then we don’t know what the numbers mean you guys are throwing around. if we are in a normal worming trend and our pollutions is only causing say 2% (just an invented number for example sake) of over normal, then that is one thing. If however, we are on a normal down (cooling) trend but our pollution is causing a huge blip over normal then that is what I want to know. I have seen some of the data, but if we don’t’ know what the scaling of the numbers are then they are just number with a lot of emotion thrown in because know one knows what they mean. That is why I feel you have to get a grasp on “earlier epochs and periods of Earth history.” To me, with out it you have no point of reference. Jim --- On Wed, 3/4/09, stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote: From: stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 12:34 PM Hi Jim, I have yet to find the link to the program that shows the scientific data that proves humans are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. I am at work and the Discovery Channel website alone has enough to wade through. But it is the same data that the vast majority of scientists agree on that proves global warming is being influenced by humans. Influenced to the point where it is tipping the CO2 scales and causing global warming or exacerbating it. Now, one can either rummage through thousands of pages of scientific data or one can watch a one hour science program that tells you the same thing. And I have seen enough science programs and read enough about this to know when corporate entities are trying to dupe me. I will post the link when or if I can find it. Don, I do not see what the earlier epochs and periods of Earth history have to do with modern atmospheric data. In the carboniferous period, there were massive volcanoes too. That would indeed place a huge amount of CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere. But there were also 3 foot diameter spiders and dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans. So what? I don't see your point. When volcanoes are going crazy... unlike today, you would expect massive influxes of these gases. Also, anyone can name a scientist or two that would agree with their views. Two or three scientists disagreeing with man-made global warming does not constitute evidence against the overwhelming data that says man-made global warming exists. That is like saying the fundamentalist Christians have refuted evolution because they can disprove the Java man fossils. It does not stand up against the overwhelming majority of collected data that says global warming is either caused or greatly exacerbated by humans. As far as attacking the messenger... when the messenger is the fossil fuel lobby, yes, I will attack it. I understand BP is trying to move in the direction of cleaner energy. But please, do not insult me by implying the petroleum industry and lobbyists are looking after the best interests of human kind. Profits off of fossil fuels are there biggest objective. And Exxon... come on. Every year they make billions in profits and still receive billions in tax breaks. Until the petroleum industry is willing to move part and parcel beyond technologies that have not changed for over one hundred years, I will rail against them. They are not my friends. Green energy is attainable and profitable. The fossil fuel industry has the ability to move us into cleaner energy sources. And so much more can be done by these corporate giants. But they want to wring out the very last drop of profit at our expense. And the very fact that we are discussing this makes me think that their propaganda has convinced some to think that we can keep using petroleum like it is going out of style. Well... you know what? It is going out of style... and quantity. The only question is... how much damage will we do to the Earth before we learn a very hard and serious lesson? By the way... I love this discussion. Jon _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
With what followed I assumed that Jon meant to say "are not" rather than "are"
Jon, You wrote ââ¦shows the scientific data that proves humans are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere.â You donât have to prove that to me. I already believe it, but you nor anyone knows what it really means. You have no point of reference.  You also wrote âDon, I do not see what the earlier epochs and periods of Earth history have to do with modern atmospheric data.â To me, with respect, you are not seeing what I think I see. I see various forces undulating in a somewhat sinusoidal fashion (too complicated for me to explain or fully understand) that have caused global worming and cooling over eons. If we donât know what those trends are with some confidence then we donât know what the numbers mean you guys are throwing around. if we are in a normal worming trend and our pollutions is only causing say 2% (just an invented number for example sake) of over normal, then that is one thing. If however, we are on a normal down (cooling) trend but our pollution is causing a huge blip over normal then that is what I want to know.  I have seen some of the data, but if we donâtâ know what the scaling of the numbers are then they are just number with a lot of emotion thrown in because know one knows what they mean. That is why I feel you have to get a grasp on âearlier epochs and periods of Earth history.â To me, with out it you have no point of reference.  Jim
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote:
From: stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 12:34 PM
Hi Jim, I have yet to find the link to the program that shows the scientific data that proves humans are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. I am at work and the Discovery Channel website alone has enough to wade through. But it is the same data that the vast majority of scientists agree on that proves global warming is being influenced by humans. Influenced to the point where it is tipping the CO2 scales and causing global warming or exacerbating it. Now, one can either rummage through thousands of pages of scientific data or one can watch a one hour science program that tells you the same thing. And I have seen enough science programs and read enough about this to know when corporate entities are trying to dupe me. I will post the link when or if I can find it. Don, I do not see what the earlier epochs and periods of Earth history have to do with modern atmospheric data. In the carboniferous period, there were massive volcanoes too. That would indeed place a huge amount of CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere. But there were also 3 foot diameter spiders and dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans. So what? I don't see your point. When volcanoes are going crazy... unlike today, you would expect massive influxes of these gases. Also, anyone can name a scientist or two that would agree with their views. Two or three scientists disagreeing with man-made global warming does not constitute evidence against the overwhelming data that says man-made global warming exists. That is like saying the fundamentalist Christians have refuted evolution because they can disprove the Java man fossils. It does not stand up against the overwhelming majority of collected data that says global warming is either caused or greatly exacerbated by humans. As far as attacking the messenger... when the messenger is the fossil fuel lobby, yes, I will attack it. I understand BP is trying to move in the direction of cleaner energy. But please, do not insult me by implying the petroleum industry and lobbyists are looking after the best interests of human kind. Profits off of fossil fuels are there biggest objective. And Exxon... come on. Every year they make billions in profits and still receive billions in tax breaks. Until the petroleum industry is willing to move part and parcel beyond technologies that have not changed for over one hundred years, I will rail against them. They are not my friends. Green energy is attainable and profitable. The fossil fuel industry has the ability to move us into cleaner energy sources. And so much more can be done by these corporate giants. But they want to wring out the very last drop of profit at our expense. And the very fact that we are discussing this makes me think that their propaganda has convinced some to think that we can keep using petroleum like it is going out of style. Well... you know what? It is going out of style... and quantity. The only question is... how much damage will we do to the Earth before we learn a very hard and serious lesson?
By the way... I love this discussion.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (3)
-
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Jim Gibson -
stormcrow60＠xmission.com