Kyoto protocol is just the beginning
Roger Coppock
It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the
early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the
commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force.
And that will allow the world to get on with what really matters:
drawing up the successor to Kyoto.
For if ardent greens and out-and-out sceptics can agree on anything,
it is that Kyoto will not even come close to solving the problem of
climate change. It is, as the UN Environment Programme director Klaus
Toepfer said in a statement last week, "only the first step in a long
journey".
The clock is ticking. Every year we are releasing almost 7 billion
tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere – carbon that had lain buried
since the days of the dinosaurs. It will remain in the atmosphere for
around a century, raising the level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and trapping more of the sun's heat.
Before the industrial age, the CO2 level was steady at around 280
parts per million. When the Kyoto protocol was drawn up in 1997, the
CO2 level had reached at 368 ppm. Im 2004, it hit 379 ppm.
Floods and droughts
Most predictions of soaring temperatures, floods, droughts, storms and
rising sea levels are based on a concentration of 550 ppm. On current
trends, this figure, is likely to be reached in the second half of
this century. Even if levels rose no higher, this would just be the
start. Time lags in natural systems such as ice caps and ocean
circulation mean that changes will continue for millennia after the
CO2 level stabilises (see graphic).
Carbon emissions
The bottom line is that only drastic cuts in global emissions of CO2,
of two-thirds or more, can stop the concentration of the gas rising
ever higher and stave off ever more severe climate change. The more
quickly the world can make such cuts, the lower the level at which
concentrations will eventually stabilise.
More of this report and a graph are available at:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996494
hanson
news:25516292.0410...@posting.google.com...
> Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition, 10:00 10 October 04
> It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the
> early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the
> commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force.
>
Roger, Roger, Roger........"if Russia"..."IF" is the operative word....
ahahahah........."if Russia sticks to the commitment it made "....
It was a smart move on their part.....
and now all you little green ididots can sing in/with great cheer:
----------- "...it's green, green, green
----------- on the far side of the hill
----------- and now that we got the carbon tax
----------- life is much more red-green still....."
ahahaha......BUT, listen you little green idiots, you obviously
do not realize that you have been fucked by the Ruskies,
galore!,...ahahahahaha...because you don't even know that
you are/and have been an unpaid enabler and facilitator
to this grand red-green carbon con scam........ahahahaha.....
The Russians will get and take their CO2 emission credits,
these green $$$$$$....NO doubt!....and then they'll pay with
these green $$$$ for their just announced upgrading of their
missile und nuke arsenal...AHAHAHAHAHA...the RUSKIES
fucked you little green idiots!!!!!...ahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA..
The Ruskies, as usual, have no intent with Kydioto complyance
in the first place....but you dreamy-eyed, well-intended
little green idiots do not believe it. ....ahanahaha...But, then
when you finally complain to the Ruskies, they will prove
to you immediately and proudly that they indeed did & do so,
by showing you their brand-new shiny, upgraded arsenal
of ballistic missiles tipped with their latest multimega ton
nukes and they'll insist that this their way of complying!
They'll even offer you caviar & vodka to thank you for your
help....for that "carbon tax" which YOU have paid....and that
carbon that you now can be POTENTIALLY incinerated into
because of your own green greed and enviro fanaticism.....
AHAHAHA.........ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHHAAHA.....
See, how you fucked yourself, AGAIN, you little green idiots
and you didn't even make a fucking dime.....AHAHAHAHA..
When will it dawn on you little green idiots that
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
> And that will allow the world to get on with what really matters:
> drawing up the successor to Kyoto.
>
> For if ardent greens and out-and-out sceptics can agree on anything,
> it is that Kyoto will not even come close to solving the problem of
> climate change. It is, as the UN Environment Programme director Klaus
> Toepfer said in a statement last week, "only the first step in a long
> journey".
>
> The clock is ticking. Every year we are releasing almost 7 billion
> tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere - carbon that had lain buried
Joshua Halpern
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:25516292.0410...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition, 10:00 10 October 04
>>It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the
>>early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the
>>commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force.
>>
>
> [hanson]
> Roger, Roger, Roger........"if Russia"..."IF" is the operative word....
> ahahahah........."if Russia sticks to the commitment it made "....
Hanson, Hanson, Hanson.........Russia is honest, it stays bought, well
at least until the Euro starts to fall against the dollar, and frankly
don't hold your breath on that one.
josh halpern
hanson
news:5eGad.851$MY.331@trnddc03...
> > "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> > news:25516292.0410...@posting.google.com...
> >>Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition, 10:00 10 October 04
> >>It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the
> >>early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the
> >>commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force.
> >
> > [hanson]
> > Roger, Roger, Roger........"if Russia"..."IF" is the operative word....
> > ahahahah........."if Russia sticks to the commitment it made "....
> > The Ruskies, as usual, have no intent with Kydioto complyance
> > in the first place....but you dreamy-eyed, well-intended
> > little green idiots do not believe it. ....ahanahaha...But, then
> > when you finally complain to the Ruskies, they will prove
> > to you immediately and proudly that they indeed did & do so,
> > by showing you their brand-new shiny, upgraded arsenal
> > of ballistic missiles tipped with their latest multimega ton
> > nukes and they'll insist that this their way of complying!
> > They'll even offer you caviar & vodka to thank you for your
> > help....for that "carbon tax" which YOU have paid....and that
> > carbon that you now can be POTENTIALLY incinerated into
> > because of your own green greed and enviro fanaticism.....
> > AHAHAHA.........ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHHAAHA.....
>
> Hanson, Hanson, Hanson.........Russia is honest, it stays
> bought, well at least until the Euro starts to fall against
> the dollar, and frankly don't hold your breath on that one.
>
Brilliant, Josh,..... but not quite convincing, because
(1) you forgot an "if" in front of "Russia is honest,..."
(2) The EU vs $ follows the same pattern that the Yen vs $
did. Remember when the Japs bought "half" of the prime
US real estate and then had to "sell" it back to us for 10
cents on the dollar. Our European kin folk will face a
similar situation, & on top of that they have to pay their
dues for THEIR unification.... Remember how much it cost
the US to do so? Remember the cost of our sacrifices?
Our good green back will be back. Don't worry, Josh. Be a
patriot, believe in America! It gave you what you have!
Naturally, if you are so convinced of your view then do what
George Soros did. Speculate with the EU/$ currencies.
Moneys on the order and magnitude of Soros' currency
machinations do await you. Go for it. You'll love the USA
when you make money, just like he does. But until you come
& brag about it, till then, I'll go with my view that the little
green idiots have fucked themselves with the carbon tax.
Take care, Josh,
hanson
Tequila
enacting deep and meaningful cuts in CO2, right now.
I urge the EU to provide their citizens with the benefits
lower greenhouse gas inventories, right now.
Tequila
Joshua Halpern
Actually you are thinking of the Chinese for this round.
Our European kin folk will face a
> similar situation, & on top of that they have to pay their
> dues for THEIR unification.... Remember how much it cost
> the US to do so? Remember the cost of our sacrifices?
Hmm....I guess the Russians say the same thing to the Europeans also.
> Our good green back will be back. Don't worry, Josh. Be a
> patriot, believe in America! It gave you what you have!
>
> Naturally, if you are so convinced of your view then do what
> George Soros did. Speculate with the EU/$ currencies.
I have.
Steve Schulin
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
The head of the Centre for the New Europe had a letter in London
Telegraph earlier this month predicting that Kyoto costs will be so bad,
and social effects so great, that EU politicians will get out of meeting
commitments. Here's how he put it:
... Kyoto will also ultimately prove to be an economic disaster for
Europe - and the developing world... [I]t will ... carry with it
excessive economic costs that will stifle economic growth and thereby
undermine research into alternative technologies...
In reality, the economic and social costs of Kyoto will be so great that
European politicians will never actually deliver. As with a host of
other promises, weasel words and get-outs will be used, while key
targets are missed. One has only to look at the politics surrounding the
European Stability Pact to see how politicians use obfuscation and
rhetoric to get around such commitments. The economics of Kyoto are so
bad for Europe that it will never be turned into a reality.
I believe that European and developing countries need to have
environmental policies that promote, rather than hinder, economic growth
and human prosperity. It is only by basing decisions on sound science
and by encouraging economically viable solutions that we will all be
able to move forward.
[Source: Tim Evans (President and Director-General - Centre for the New
Europe, Brussels), "Kyoto will chill the global economy", letter to the
editor, The Daily Telegraph (London), October 2, 2004, p. 27]
> Take care, Josh,
> hanson
>
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
Phil Hays
>... an economic disaster for Europe - and the developing world...
> [I]t will ... carry with it excessive economic costs that will
> stifle economic growth and thereby undermine research into
> alternative technologies...
Good description of the economic effects of drastic climate change.
--
Phil Hays
Phil-hays at posting domain should work for email
hanson
No, I wasn't. But you are right, for *this* round. More than
you think. The poor bastards are holding only our paper, the
govt. bonds. And *paper* is just an instrument subject to
negotiations.......ahahaha......it'll be interesting....
>
> Our European kin folk will face a
> > similar situation, & on top of that they have to pay their
> > dues for THEIR unification.... Remember how much it cost
> > the US to do so? Remember the cost of our sacrifices?
>
> Hmm....I guess the Russians say the same thing to the
> Europeans also.
>
Why not? But why should that help'em?
>
> > Our good green back will be back. Don't worry, Josh. Be a
> > patriot, believe in America! It gave you what you have!
> >
> > Naturally, if you are so convinced of your view then do what
> > George Soros did. Speculate with the EU/$ currencies.
>
> I have.
Oh yeah? With how much? With the change you brought home
from your last trip over there?.........AHAHAHAH.....AHAHA....
But yours (*I have*) was a good come-back line......ahahaha..
Thanks for the laugh, Josh.
ahahaha........ahahahanson
Joshua Halpern
> "Joshua Halpern" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cR%ad.4022$Rp4.2955@trnddc01...
>>>>>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
SNIP....
>>>[hanson]
>>>Brilliant, Josh,..... but not quite convincing, because
>>>(1) you forgot an "if" in front of "Russia is honest,..."
>>>(2) The EU vs $ follows the same pattern that the Yen vs $
>>>did. Remember when the Japs bought "half" of the prime
>>>US real estate and then had to "sell" it back to us for 10
>>>cents on the dollar.
>>
>>Actually you are thinking of the Chinese for this round.
>
> No, I wasn't. But you are right, for *this* round. More than
> you think. The poor bastards are holding only our paper, the
> govt. bonds. And *paper* is just an instrument subject to
> negotiations.......ahahaha......it'll be interesting....
Even more interesting if they force a default. Argentina stiffed the
banks and look at the joy they got for it. Ahhhhhhhhaaaha ....not
>
>> Our European kin folk will face a
>>>similar situation, & on top of that they have to pay their
>>>dues for THEIR unification.... Remember how much it cost
>>>the US to do so? Remember the cost of our sacrifices?
>>
>>Hmm....I guess the Russians say the same thing to the
>>Europeans also.
>>
> Why not? But why should that help'em?
Why should it help the US then?
>
>>>Our good green back will be back. Don't worry, Josh. Be a
>>>patriot, believe in America! It gave you what you have!
>>>
>>>Naturally, if you are so convinced of your view then do what
>>>George Soros did. Speculate with the EU/$ currencies.
>>
>>I have.
>
> Oh yeah? With how much? With the change you brought home
> from your last trip over there?.........AHAHAHAH.....AHAHA....
> But yours (*I have*) was a good come-back line......ahahaha..
> Thanks for the laugh, Josh.
> ahahaha........ahahahanson
Enough that I can survive economic disruption under George II. Apres
moi, le deluge. Et vous? In euro or swiss francs?
josh halpern
>
charliew2
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>> ... an economic disaster for Europe - and the developing world...
>> [I]t will ... carry with it excessive economic costs that will
>> stifle economic growth and thereby undermine research into
>> alternative technologies...
>
> Good description of the economic effects of drastic climate change.
Interesting ... drastic climate change will produce "sky is falling"
economic effects, and Kyoto 1, and 2, and 3 ..., will produce "sky is
falling" economic effects. There's only one conclusion that I can draw from
this:
If I'm screwed either way, I want my normal supply of fossil fuel!
hanson
> Apres moi, le deluge. Et vous?
>
ahahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA..........
Your cape waving is beginning to surpass Shakespearian norms.
But that's what we have to live with, après ski, après la luge,
dans la douche ou en le deluge avec un parapluie, que peut
etre en rouge. (argot vert) .........whether we like it or not.
Or have you found a way to rule from the grave?
But let's not get too melodramatic here.
Mais toujours, il y a des caillooux sur la route, n'est pas....
Eric Swanson
The problem is that everybody else wants your "normal" supply of fossil fuel.
By that I mean that the other people on Earth also want to consume at your (the
U.S.) level of energy use. The U.S. consumption of crude oil (including imported
product) stands at about 20 million bbls per day, or 840 million gallons. That's
about 3 gallons per day per person. To an individual who commutes to work this may
not seem like much, considering that this number includes almost all transportation
and some heating and electricity production. After all, it amounts to little more
than $6 per day to the consumer. The fact is that even this seemingly small amount
is vastly more than that used by most of the rest of the Earth's population.
We see both China and India becoming more developed and thus placing a rapidly
increasing demand upon the world's fossil fuel supplies. If they do approach even
half the per capita level of fossil fuel consumption that we have in the U.S. and
reach the level of Europe or Japan, then the climate is likely to undergo major changes.
Think of it this way. The U.S. population of around 285 million has some 140
million registered cars. That's 1 for ever 2 people. Now, think of a future in
which China is developed to a level of 1 car for 4 people. With a population of
1,300 million today, that translates to 325 million cars, more than twice the
number of the U.S. And that's not counting other forms of transportation.
The same applies to India and the rest of the "underdeveloped" nations.
The way things are going, I'd say we (the U.S.) are going to be "screwed".....
That is, unless we are willing to make a drastic change in what is consider "normal".
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tequila
lower national greenhouse gas inventory will bring them.
Shame on EU policymakers who defy
the wishes of their people.
Tequila
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:37:33 -0500, Tequila <teq...@mockingbird.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Keep in mind that nothing prevents any country from
> >enacting deep and meaningful cuts in CO2, right now.
> >I urge the EU to provide their citizens with the benefits
> >lower greenhouse gas inventories, right now.
>
> Except of course the economic competitive pressures, which is why an
> international treaty is the way to resolve it.
>
> ____
> "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that
> would support the existence of nuclear weapons on any weapons of mass
> destruction in Iraq, and we have not received from our partners such
> information as yet," Putin told a press conference after his recent
> meetings with Tony Blair in the Russian countryside, including the
> British government's recently disclosed dossier that alleges Saddam
> has weapons of mass destruction that he's ready to use.
> Oct 17, 2002
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DJ17Ak03.html
hanson
news:ckjck5$4mft$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> The way things are going, I'd say we (the U.S.)
> are going to be "screwed".....
> That is, unless we are willing to make a drastic
> change in what is consider "normal".
>
In other words, you advocate that we should "screw"
ourselves first, before "they" are screwing us.
Really?....but then, this is the "normal" thinking that
occurs in the brains of well meaning little green idiots...
...ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA....ahahahaha........
ahahaha.....ahahahanson
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Is there any difference between the kind of projections you emphasize
and the concern a hundred years ago about the prospect of horse manure
in the streets of cities like New York?
We know how to extract CO2 from ambient air. What's the rush to retire
the fruits of past investments early, and force changes which, like the
diesel incentives in EU nations, may turn out to be "cures that are
worse than the illness".
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <azHad.784$6k2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>The head of the Centre for the New Europe had a letter in London
>Telegraph earlier this month predicting that Kyoto costs will be so bad,
>and social effects so great, that EU politicians will get out of meeting
>commitments. Here's how he put it:
A calamatologist, as always. "The sky is falling! The sky is
falling!"
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>Is there any difference between the kind of projections you emphasize
>and the concern a hundred years ago about the prospect of horse manure
>in the streets of cities like New York?
>
>We know how to extract CO2 from ambient air. What's the rush to retire
>the fruits of past investments early, and force changes which, like the
>diesel incentives in EU nations, may turn out to be "cures that are
>worse than the illness".
>
Proactive changes always cost less than reactive ones. I
thought you understood that.
Eric Swanson
Yes, most certainly.
The transition from wood to coal took about 60 years and a similar transition
from coal to oil took about 60 more years. Then, natural gas was added
and finally, nuclear electric. The process went from local to regional to
national and finally global scale. Each transition went from an energy source
what was messy/dirty to a cleaner and easier to use energy source. As more
of the Earth's population enters the competetion, ALL of these sources will
still be in the mix, but the prospect that demand will exceed the availibility
of ALL of these sources becomes a serious new headache. That's BEFORE one adds
in consideration of the potential problems from climate change.
>We know how to extract CO2 from ambient air. What's the rush to retire
>the fruits of past investments early, and force changes which, like the
>diesel incentives in EU nations, may turn out to be "cures that are
>worse than the illness".
All machines and devices which use energy eventually wear out and must be
replaced. Your imagined "fruits of past investments" are temporary, as
buildings and power plants become too old to fix and are scrapped. There is
always the possibility that "the cure will be worse than the disease". From
what we know now (not what you will admit, I'm sorry to say) that's not the
likely result, however.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
If that were the case, nobody would know the expression "look before you
leap". There's lots of local disadvantages of carbon fuel use, just as
there were for horses in cities. A bureaucratic global change regime was
not warranted for horses, although flies did have wings. The recent
study predicting increase in flies and maggots from temperature rise in
UK reminds me of the concern about horses. "The Centrality of the Horse
to the Nineteenth-Century American City" by historians Tarr and McShane
is an interesting read in this regard. [Ref: pp. 105-130 in The Making
of Urban America, edited by Raymond Mohl, 1997 (SR Publishers, New
York)]. Opinions vary as to whether a global regime is warranted for
CO2. The computer models, whose temperature projections were, BTW, used
as framework for the recent flies and maggots quantification (the 3?C
increase in mean UK temperature will result in an estimated 97% increase
in flies or somesuch was the researcher's best estimate), are of such
dubious predictive value, for purposes of policy, that I don't urge my
own government to ratify Kyoto as a first step.
Dez Akin
Only for what we really understand. For it to actually cost less,
you'll have to know something about the economic environment of said
year when dire economic effects are said to occur, and factor in the
discount rate. Otherwise we may just be doing proactive holes in the
skull to let out the demons.
David Ball
That presupposes that we don't understand, now doesn't it?
Unfortunately, you seem to be suggesting that we don't. That's quite
wrong. We do understand enough to make some modest changes to the way
we are doing things. Note the use of the word "modest". There are
people out there for which ANY change at all is anathema, however, and
these people will not only sit on their hands, but will also attempt
to get everyone else to sit do the same. Delaying modest changes
virtually ensures that more draconian measures will be needed down the
road. That's going to cost big money.
hanson
news:pHFbd.36875$3C6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...> <snip>
> > So what you're suggesting is we know with high probability that
> > climate change is going to be a net economic detriment? You may very
> > well believe that, though I'm unconvinced.
>
> Is it so lost on you that we have a MASSIVE investment in the 'normal
> climate'? There will ALWAYS be massive costs to any significant change in
> climate even if the 'winners and losers' even out because the cost of
> ADAPTATION is ALWAYS POSITIVE.
>
> Got a clue yet?
>
[hanson]
You of course are the loser, a forgone conclusion.
But certainly, for these guys here, the winners, it's a positive fortune.
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
in section "climate" one reads under an enormous amount of out
and out green shit, designed to promote fears to make the carbon
tax a reality, so that the sharpies amongst green turds can collect
their new **green admin-fees** and other graft..... Quotes say:
== OIL COMPANIES like BP, Shell and RWE in Germany, have been
among the most active in the trading of **permits*..... AHAHAHAHA
== CO2 credit trading draws bankers' interest as fundamental
driver of coal, gas, metals markets........ahahahaha......AHAHAHA...
== As carbon emissions trading increases, the financial services
industry is preparing itself for a potentially lucrative market.....
== carbon emissions value at $15 a tonne, the surplus would be
worth just under $500 million to the Government.
== At Chicago Climate Exchange prices jumped to over US$11 per
tonne ($40/tC) following the Russian announcement
== The price of CO2 in Europe rose 20% to nearly euros 10 (£7) per
tonne on the back of the news from Moscow last night,
== Estimates the financial value of the European carbon market will
be worth 10 BILLION euros (£6.9bn) a year by 2007.
Where is the "environment here?.....It only shows that the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer by this global Kydioto Carbon
TAX trading scam. And all the poor, all the little green idiots,
THEY PAY for all this....$$$$ that go into the pocket of these rich oil-
and banking bastards, fat bureaucrats and corrupt politicians...and
all the well meaning little green idiots fucked themselves by having
been the unpaid enablers and facilitators for the green sharpies!
=== How does a CO2 cutback GUARANTEE to bring a cooling? ===
= It's a green dream at best but most likely a big green lie & con! =
The green bible says so in it's edicts like:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
...ahahaha..AHAHAHA........ahahaha......ahahahanson
hanson
> "the cure [the carbon tax] will be worse than the disease".
>
[hanson]
I am glad for you Eric, that deep down, within you,
you still do know what is right, Eric.
You begin to see what that green carbon tax means:
OIL COMPANIES, BANKERS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,....
news:sYUad.1315$6k2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[hanson]
......ahahaha......HAHAHAHA.......ahahahaha.........this is a great
thread.......Slowly, the pot with the green soup begins to boil over
and talks about how many DOLLARS = $$$$$$ this environmental
con and crock will cost. The public has begun to recognized that
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining ==
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
in section "climate" one reads under an enormous amount of out
and out green shit, designed to promote fears to make the carbon
tax a reality, so that the sharpies amongst green turds can collect
their new **green admin-fees** and other graft..... Quotes say:
== OIL COMPANIES like BP, Shell and RWE in Germany, have been
among the most active in the trading of **permits*..... AHAHAHAHA
== CO2 credit trading draws bankers' interest as fundamental
driver of coal, gas, metals markets........ahahahaha......AHAHAHA...
== As carbon emissions trading increases, the financial services
industry is preparing itself for a potentially lucrative market.....
== carbon emissions value at $15 a tonne, the surplus would be
worth just under $500 million to the Government.
== At Chicago Climate Exchange prices jumped to over US$11 per
tonne ($40/tC) following the Russian announcement
== The price of CO2 in Europe rose 20% to nearly euros 10 (£7) per
tonne on the back of the news from Moscow last night,
== Estimates the financial value of the European carbon market will
be worth 10 BILLION euros (£6.9bn) a year by 2007.
Where is the "environment here?.....It only shows that the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer in this global Kydioto Carbon
TAX trading scam. And you the poor, you the little green idiots,
YOU PAY for all this....$$$$ that go into the pocket of these rich oil-
and banking bastards, fat bureaucrats and corrupt politicians...
YOU MADE YOURSELF POORER, you well meaning little green idiots!
...ahahaha..AHAHAHA........
== Ottawa estimates cost for the carbon tax to vary from $17 to
$45 billion....money that could be spent on health care or our
urban infrastructure. The CA Taxpayers Federation says increased
prices and taxes from Kyoto will cost each family $2,700. ...
The Fraser Institute study pegs the annual cost of Kyoto at $4,700
per Canadian, the same as per-capita health-care spending. ==
So, you little green idiots, you when you get sick you won't be able
to afford a doctor......because YOU MORONS YOU GAVE YOUR $$$
to some rich bastard who bamboozled you with the word "ENVIRO"
ahahahaha.........ahahahaha........
Don't you see that all this has nothing to do with any "environment"
except the environment in YOUR WALLET that is being clean out...
It is about Dollars!.....GREEN MONEY... that is what this is all about!
.......Fucked be the environment...."environment" is only the gimmick
these green cocksuckers use to fuck all you well meaning little green
idiots, you their unpaid enablers & facilitators. Serves you right! Fools!
You won't even listen when every now and then, and far in between,
you hear a decent environmentalist speak up and say like
== British professor David Bellamy is a botanist famous for saving
endangered species. But now he's a famous victim of endangered
speech -- speech stifled by "elite" journalists when it challenges their
green religion. ... Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare
version -- is a myth", Bellamy declares. It is "largely a natural
phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably
isn't causing us any harm". Putting more carbon dioxide in the air just
means giving plants more of the "most important airborne fertiliser in
the world". Yet we "may be about to divert ** billions, nay trillions of
pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that doesn't exist."
One can easily recognize the promoters of this Carbon trading scam,
this extortion scheme, to fuck the average Joe, even in these NG's.
It's the posters that loudly advocate it... they are the stupid but well
meaning little green idiots... & then there are the sharpies, the green
turds...the sleigh ones who push it via green scare- & doom arguments
using that as their tool, but really with their sole intent to become the
beneficiaries and/or recipients of graft in form $$ contracts, admin fees
or speaker fees, or so-called grants......ahahahaha...... all machinations,
and tactics that originated in the green bible which taught them, that
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer
Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
**** Eric, you can excempt yourself from that group now ****
ahahaha.......ahahahanson
shervahnya
scientific backgrounds. Any Jo blo comments some time in his/her day
on a symptom or consequence. What bothers me though, is that Keoto has
the potential to tun into another method of usurping another countries
"resources". I'm glad australia didnt sign...and no, nothing to do
with % blah blah carbon emmissions (which I might add...did they ever
bother to factor in population and dispersal of cities and industry or
climatic and edaphic features???). My concern was a few lowely points
1)What will stop overseas companies who are stakeholders in our
country, and greedy corporations from say bulldozing a few rain
forests and planting it with pinus radiata wood lots and grab up the
points? 2) third world counties. I would like to see where is their
protection againsed greedy global powers from doing them a deal (for
their good of course) buying up their land, doing what they want with
it, and grabbing carbon credits for their own country????. I reckon
before the world gets too warm and fuzzy and feels really good about
their environmental conscience, perhaps we should first question
motive and insentive, and how to police the parasites of the economic
world.
hanson
news:950c9f52.04101...@posting.google.com...
> Ok save the planet. Yes we should.
.......save it from what?......
Yes, save it and us from green doomsayers and enviro turds!
> The data is there from many scientific backgrounds.
> Any Jo blo comments some time in his/her day
> on a symptom or consequence.
...... just like you are doing now in your post?.....no harm.
Let'em sing!......ALL of'em........it's a beautiful choir.
> What bothers me though, is that Keoto has the potential to tun
> into another method of usurping another countries "resources".
..... that is not a potential. *THAT IS Kydioto's GOAL": Billions of
dollars of graft for the green shits who contribute nothing but
to generate fear and cause poverty.......aggravating the tenuous
social stability with their fucking green greed. Bastards.
Look who is making the money:
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
in section "climate" one reads under an enormous amount of out
and out green shit, designed to promote fears to make the carbon
tax a reality, so that the sharpies amongst green turds can collect
their new **green admin-fees** and other graft..... Quotes say:
== OIL COMPANIES like BP, Shell and RWE in Germany, have been
among the most active in the trading of **permits*..... AHAHAHAHA
== CO2 credit trading draws bankers' interest as fundamental
driver of coal, gas, metals markets........ahahahaha......AHAHAHA...
== As carbon emissions trading increases, the financial services
industry is preparing itself for a potentially lucrative market.....
== carbon emissions value at $15 a tonne, the surplus would be
worth just under $500 million to the Government.
== At Chicago Climate Exchange prices jumped to over US$11 per
tonne ($40/tC) following the Russian announcement
== The price of CO2 in Europe rose 20% to nearly euros 10 (£7) per
tonne on the back of the news from Moscow last night,
== Estimates the financial value of the European carbon market will
be worth 10 BILLION euros (£6.9bn) a year by 2007.
Where is the "environment here?.....It only shows that the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer by this global Kydioto Carbon
TAX trading scam. And all the poor, all the little green idiots,
THEY PAY for all this....$$$$ that go into the pocket of these rich oil-
and banking bastards, fat bureaucrats and corrupt politicians...and
all the well meaning little green idiots fucked themselves by having
been the unpaid enablers and facilitators for the green sharpies!
=== How does a CO2 cutback GUARANTEE to bring a cooling? ===
= It's a green dream at best but most likely a big green lie & con! =
The green bible says so in it's edicts like:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
> I'm glad australia didnt sign...
You are lucky. You seem to have politicians that are neither
crooked nor idiots nor infested by green turditis.
> and no, nothing to do with %
> blah blah carbon emmissions (which I might add...did they ever
> bother to factor in population and dispersal of cities and industry or
> climatic and edaphic features???).
No, of course not! Green turds are interested only in getting green
backs, $$$$, MONEY....to get graft off the public trough via permit
charges user fees and new CARBON EMISSION TAXES.
> My concern was a few lowely points
> 1) What will stop overseas companies who are stakeholders
> in our country, and greedy corporations from say bulldozing a
> few rain forests and planting it with pinus radiata wood lots
> and grab up the points?
>
Tell your local or respective govt. reps to declare these areas
as national treasures/parks/forests that can't be touched.
If enough people in your area do it, then it will happen....But
don't cry then when your own taxes do go up!!! These greedy
corporations produce plenty goods which YOU use and they
pay plenty of taxes. So, the choice is yours, but you can't
have the cake and eat it too........ahahahaha........
>
> 2) third world counties. I would like to see where is their
> protection againsed greedy global powers from doing them
> a deal (for their good of course) buying up their land, doing
> what they want with it, and grabbing carbon credits for their
> own country????.
These "greedy global powers" learned from, were and are
pushed & forced by the green turds, the evironmentalists, to do
so. Now, they too do cheer and make $ by the billions, while
the climate gets warmer regardless.......ahahahaha....
> I reckon before the world gets too warm and fuzzy and feels
> really good about their environmental conscience, perhaps we
> should first question motive and insentive, and how to police
> the parasites of the economic world.
Green turds, who started this entire enviro mania, that's who
the parasites are. You need to look no further.
...ahahaha..AHAHAHA........ahahaha......ahahahanson
Phil Hays
>We know how to extract CO2 from ambient air.
Funny. Real funny.
What's the cost, in dollars per tonne of CO2?
And who's going to pay the bill?
A clue: It's cheaper to not dump the CO2 in the first place...Much
cheaper.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >We know how to extract CO2 from ambient air.
>
> Funny. Real funny.
>
> What's the cost, in dollars per tonne of CO2?
The only cost fiigure I recall was by some DOE lab researchers -- Los
Alamos folks, I think. It was at or less than the 30-cents/gal of
optimal "hedge" recommended by Yohe et al in yesterday's "Policy Forum"
piece in Science.
>
> And who's going to pay the bill?
Maybe it wont be necessary.
>
> A clue: It's cheaper to not dump the CO2 in the first place...Much
> cheaper.
It's not clear that we'll see double the pre-industrial ambient
atmospheric CO2 concentration. And it's not clear that CO2 has near the
climate effect that comments like yours choose to emphasize.
Michael Tobis
> It's not clear that we'll see double the pre-industrial ambient
> atmospheric CO2 concentration.
It's much more likely than not, though.
> And it's not clear that CO2 has near the
> climate effect that comments like yours choose to emphasize.
That's rather a vague assertion, but I'd still say it's much more
likely than not.
On the other hand:
> Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > A clue: It's cheaper to not dump the CO2 in the first place...Much
> > cheaper.
That is not clear.
Fossil fuels are nearly cost-free energy except for the environmental
cost. If the cost of remediating the environmental damage ends up
being less than the benefit of the energy, there's no reason not to
pursue it.
Anyway sequestration ideas should be researched vigorously, so that if
the actual crisis many of us expect actually occurs there will at
least be a way of partially backing out of it.
As a matter of strategy, we would be deeply irresponsible to behave as
if global CO2 sequestration were certainly feasible, but perhaps even
more irresponsible to behave as if it were certainly not.
mt
David Ball
>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-E42...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
>> It's not clear that we'll see double the pre-industrial ambient
>> atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>
>It's much more likely than not, though.
>
>> And it's not clear that CO2 has near the
>> climate effect that comments like yours choose to emphasize.
>
>That's rather a vague assertion, but I'd still say it's much more
>likely than not.
>
>On the other hand:
>
>> Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > A clue: It's cheaper to not dump the CO2 in the first place...Much
>> > cheaper.
>
>That is not clear.
>
>Fossil fuels are nearly cost-free energy except for the environmental
>cost. If the cost of remediating the environmental damage ends up
>being less than the benefit of the energy, there's no reason not to
>pursue it.
That's a pretty silly thing to say. They're nearly cost-free
except for the cost? That's like saying that the only bad thing about
going bald is the hair loss. If there is a cost involved then it isn't
cost-free, now is it?
>
>Anyway sequestration ideas should be researched vigorously, so that if
>the actual crisis many of us expect actually occurs there will at
>least be a way of partially backing out of it.
I'm reminded of the old joke about the man who goes to the
doctor and says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!" and the doctor
replies, "Then don't do it!". Maybe before we tackle the complicated
solutions we might actually have a go at the simple ones first? Maybe,
oh, I dunno, maybe we could give reducing our emissions a go before we
attempt to completely reorganize the world as we know it.
>
>As a matter of strategy, we would be deeply irresponsible to behave as
>if global CO2 sequestration were certainly feasible, but perhaps even
>more irresponsible to behave as if it were certainly not.
>
As a matter of strategy, I would prefer us to actively
research such option WHILE we are doing the incredibly obvious. Then,
if the incredibly obvious doesn't pan out we'll have something to fall
back on. I especially don't want to see us forced into adopting a
ill-considered sequestration strategy because we have to. We got into
this mess out of ignorance. We aren't going to get out of it with more
of the same.
Phil Hays
>> And who's going to pay the bill?
>
>Maybe it wont be necessary.
What if it is?
>It's not clear that we'll see double the pre-industrial ambient
>atmospheric CO2 concentration.
What if we do?
> And it's not clear that CO2 has near the
> climate effect that comments like yours choose to emphasize.
What if the climatic effect of CO2 is larger than estimated?
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >> And who's going to pay the bill?
> >
> >Maybe it wont be necessary.
>
> What if it is?
>
>
> >It's not clear that we'll see double the pre-industrial ambient
> >atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>
> What if we do?
>
>
> > And it's not clear that CO2 has near the
> > climate effect that comments like yours choose to emphasize.
>
> What if the climatic effect of CO2 is larger than estimated?
Then your previous absolutist expression of an adage* which now appears
conditional might be less obviously wrong. [* you said "A clue: It's
cheaper to not dump the CO2 in the first place...Much cheaper."]
There's advantages and disadvantages associated with all types of
energy. Accentuating the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very
thoughtful approach to me. And this applies even if climate were the
only concern. The use of tax system by European nations to favor diesel
engines in new vehicles instead of gasoline engines in recent years is
an example of acting without relevant info in ths regard. The extra soot
from these well-intentioned diesels, even when stricter diesel engine
emission standards go into force, may do more to melt ice and raise
arctic temperature than all the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, not just
the small amount of CO2 avoided by the vehicles affected by the tax
changes.
Ellinor
walk! It's healthy, free and it will also solve your corpulence
problem(s).
Enjoy!
- Ellinor
Joshua Halpern
There is an article in this weeks Science about the costs of CO2
limitations. They run improved Nordhaus type models and pretty clearly
show that the costs of a carbon tax now are a lot less than thirty years
from now across pretty much the entire likely range of climate
sensitivity. In other words you are wrong.
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
I read that, and respectfully disagree with your conclusion. For
example, as I mentioned in earlier post in this thread, the cost of
extracting CO2 from ambient air has been estimated at no more than the
optimal "hedge" recommended by those authors. But besides the CO2
economics, the soot example above (and the concept it illustrates) in no
way appears to be contradicted by your reasoning. If the post-TAR work
by Jacobson and Hansen & Nazarenko had been known by the European
policymakers at the time the tax policies were changed, perhaps they
wouldn't have encouraged soot over CO2. The islanders appear to have a
much better case against the Europeans for promoting
ice-melt-related-sea-level-rise than against USA for CO2-related warming
effect on sea level.
charliew2
Uh, Josh ... don't you think it would be wise for the models to make some
predictions that are a bit more near term than 30 years (e.g., 10 years),
and take data in 10 years to verify that the models correctly predicted the
future? To put it another way, if we had reacted 5-10 years ago based on
the dire predictions of estimated global warming in the "do nothing"
scenario, a lot of money would have been wasted to correct a problem that
hasn't materialized in the last 10 years.
(cut)
charliew2
Ellinor <xdottilic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:880c0af7.04102...@posting.google.com...
Ellinor,
despite your abrasive attitude, I think that you have correctly identified a
major problem in the U.S. Walking more and driving less could actually
"kill two birds with one stone": people would become more physically fit and
save gasoline at the same time.
Phil Hays
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <r1kbn016ie5rtq3g9...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And who's going to pay the bill?
>> >
>> >Maybe it wont be necessary.
>>
>> What if it is?
Well, who is going to pay the bill for climate change? It's fairly
simple to figure out. Hint: not you, not me.
>> >It's not clear that we'll see double the pre-industrial ambient
>> >atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>>
>> What if we do?
As of 2003, the level was up to 375ppm. 10 years before that it was
about 357ppm. At that linear rate, it will take roughly a hundred
years before we double the preindustrial level of about 280ppm. And
the rate of increase is increasing. So what's going to stop it? Not
economics, coal is cheap and will be cheap for hundreds of years. Not
nuclear power, at least in the major polluter USA. Not solar or wind
power, they are limited to 30% or less of energy usage by their
variable nature. Not fusion, the USA is blocking the building of ITER
in France. So what's going to stop it?
>> > And it's not clear that CO2 has near the
>> > climate effect that comments like yours choose to emphasize.
>>
>> What if the climatic effect of CO2 is larger than estimated?
>
>Then your previous absolutist expression of an adage* which now appears
>conditional might be less obviously wrong. [* you said "A clue: It's
>cheaper to not dump the CO2 in the first place...Much cheaper."]
Amusing.
>There's advantages and disadvantages associated with all types of
>energy. Accentuating the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very
>thoughtful approach to me. And this applies even if climate were the
>only concern. The use of tax system by European nations to favor diesel
>engines in new vehicles instead of gasoline engines in recent years is
>an example of acting without relevant info in ths regard. The extra soot
>from these well-intentioned diesels, even when stricter diesel engine
>emission standards go into force, may do more to melt ice and raise
>arctic temperature than all the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, not just
>the small amount of CO2 avoided by the vehicles affected by the tax
>changes.
The extra soot has a lifetime of what? Days? Weeks? Not more than
that.
The extra CO2 will be around for thousands of years.
Maybe, just maybe, the soot has more climatic effect today. That's a
doubtful case. But CO2's climate change will be a "gift" that keeps
on giving... and giving...
Denying the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very thoughtful
approach to me.
Ellinor
> Ellinor,
>
> despite your abrasive attitude, I think that you have correctly identified a
> major problem in the U.S. Walking more and driving less could actually
> "kill two birds with one stone": people would become more physically fit and
> save gasoline at the same time.
Yup,
exactly what I ment, however you put it in a more formal way.
And it's not just americans: Where I'm from, it would solve some nasty
problems as well!
Please note: I'm neither british or american, so I won't be offended
by Shakespeare insults. (even though he was a great man)
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yet the albedo effect of soot deposition on ice and snow, according to
Hansen and Nazarenko, may be responsible for significant fraction of the
observed warming in recent decades. Without the effect of soot, perhaps
the Pacific islanders and the Inuits wouldn't be so alarmed about their
sea level and melt prospects.
And explicitly without considering the effect of soot deposition on
albedo of ice and snow, Jacobson reported that his results suggest that
black carbon (BC) warms the air 360,000-840,000 times more effectively
per unit mass than does CO2, which, he says, "illustrates why a small
mass of BC can have such a large climate effect." Jacobson compares
present EU diesel emission limits, future EU diesel emission limits, and
even speculative future EU diesel emission limits. All are projected to
produce more warming, for many years, than the gasoline engines they
replace. The shortest counterproductive period is more than 30 years, as
best I recall.
>
> The extra CO2 will be around for thousands of years.
In an in press JGR paper, Jacobson says: "An analysis suggests that the
overall lifetime range of CO2 should be 30-95 years instead of 50-200
years..." Jacobson notes that the data actually support values even
lower than 30 years, but not an iota of data supports the 200-year value
that represents the upper part of the IPCC-assessed range.
> Maybe, just maybe, the soot has more climatic effect today. That's a
> doubtful case. But CO2's climate change will be a "gift" that keeps
> on giving... and giving...
>
> Denying the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very thoughtful
> approach to me.
Folks throw around that "denialist" label so much that it's easy to use
it as you do here. It's not denial to recognize that there's been little
effect from anthropogenic GHGs thus far, and that the state of the art
models are of dubious predictive value for purposes of policy.
charliew2
My reply was not meant as an insult. Do you care to post where you're from?
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
>> The extra soot has a lifetime of what? Days? Weeks? Not more than
>> that.
>
>Yet the albedo effect of soot deposition on ice and snow, according to
>Hansen and Nazarenko, may be responsible for significant fraction of the
>observed warming in recent decades. Without the effect of soot, perhaps
>the Pacific islanders and the Inuits wouldn't be so alarmed about their
>sea level and melt prospects.
And some of the warming has been cancelled out by sulphate haze. The
net effect = ?
Not all the uncertainties are your friends.
>And explicitly without considering the effect of soot deposition on
>albedo of ice and snow, Jacobson reported that his results suggest that
>black carbon (BC) warms the air 360,000-840,000 times more effectively
>per unit mass than does CO2, which, he says, "illustrates why a small
>mass of BC can have such a large climate effect." Jacobson compares
>present EU diesel emission limits, future EU diesel emission limits, and
>even speculative future EU diesel emission limits. All are projected to
>produce more warming, for many years, than the gasoline engines they
>replace. The shortest counterproductive period is more than 30 years, as
>best I recall.
Yet if the EU stopped burning diesel today, most of climatic forcing
would be gone by next month.
>> The extra CO2 will be around for thousands of years.
>
>In an in press JGR paper, Jacobson says: "An analysis suggests that the
>overall lifetime range of CO2 should be 30-95 years instead of 50-200
>years..."
CO2 doesn't have a single atmospheric lifetime. A calculation based
on assuming that it does, as Jacobson's calculation is, is not and can
not be very meaningful. The first "atmospheric half life" of CO2 is
very short, less than a decade. The final fate of most the CO2
released is to be used by weathering of rocks, a process with a time
constant of ten's of thousands of years.
>> Denying the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very thoughtful
>> approach to me.
>
>Folks throw around that "denialist" label so much that it's easy to use
>it as you do here. It's not denial to recognize that there's been little
>effect from anthropogenic GHGs thus far, and that the state of the art
>models are of dubious predictive value for purposes of policy.
Much as the UN inspections that showed that Iraq had no WMD had no
policy impact on the USA government, eh?
Funny. In a sad sort of way.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>But besides the CO2
>economics, the soot example above (and the concept it illustrates) in no
>way appears to be contradicted by your reasoning. If the post-TAR work
>by Jacobson and Hansen & Nazarenko had been known by the European
>policymakers at the time the tax policies were changed, perhaps they
>wouldn't have encouraged soot over CO2. The islanders appear to have a
>much better case against the Europeans for promoting
>ice-melt-related-sea-level-rise than against USA for CO2-related warming
>effect on sea level.
>
Before you can make any statement about the nature of soot, or
the implications of such things as diesel engines Steve, you'd first
have to prove the impacts of soot. So far, all you've got is a
modeling study or two and every time I've pressed you to look at the
soot issue in more detail, you're run screaming from this forum with
your tail tucked between your legs. Then, like the proverbial phoenix,
Schulin arises from the ashes of his last soot argument to make
exactly the same charges as before. Guess what? They're still
unsubstantiated. Look at some real data, Perfesser, do a little
thinking and show me where soot is having a substantive impact on
temperatures, then come on back and make some arguments about policy.
Until you do that, you're blowing smoke - and I bet it's got lots of
soot in it.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> The extra soot has a lifetime of what? Days? Weeks? Not more than
>> that.
>
>Yet the albedo effect of soot deposition on ice and snow, according to
>Hansen and Nazarenko, may be responsible for significant fraction of the
>observed warming in recent decades. Without the effect of soot, perhaps
>the Pacific islanders and the Inuits wouldn't be so alarmed about their
>sea level and melt prospects.
ROTFL. Yes, the albedo effect of soot on snow that you claim
occurs during the winter, except that the places where the
temperatures are rising the fastest are DARK during the winter. Please
link real observations with soot behaviour, Steve. Apparently,
according to you, there is little impact during the spring, when you'd
actually expect to see the most significant impact. Apparently, you've
also managed to neglect the fact that at lower latitudes, old snow IS
DIRTY to begin with. What is the impact of a miniscule increase in
what amounts to dirt on old snow?
>>
>> Denying the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very thoughtful
>> approach to me.
>
>Folks throw around that "denialist" label so much that it's easy to use
>it as you do here. It's not denial to recognize that there's been little
>effect from anthropogenic GHGs thus far, and that the state of the art
>models are of dubious predictive value for purposes of policy.
Of course it is denial. What's more, it's a bold-faced lie.
Ellinor
I did not take it as an insult. When I was skimming through all your
posts, I got the impression that it was more an UK vs US war going on
here instead of a discussion concerning global warming. Perhaps I was
wrong? (as usual...o.0)
I'm from Sweden.
Ciao!
- Ellinor
charliew2
Obviously, it's not the first time that the U.S. has disagreed with the U.K.
2ndSight
posts on global climate?
When I click on your archives on Google, I get
the impression that you're actually a reasonably intelligent
person - well, except for your views of CO2 and GW.
But you can't seem to reply to the simplest point made by
other people in Talk:Environment without lots of "ahahahahas"
in your text, sprinkled with "green turd" comments and
other insults that don't add anything to your arguments.
You clearly have a point of view, and while it's a point of view
I disagree with, it probably deserves some hearing in here. But
what we mostly get from you is noise, not information.
Why? In the Terry Pratchett "Discworld" novels I read for
fun, people who write things with lots of "ahahahahahas"
embedded in the text are usually madmen. Or people pretending
to be madmen ...
Why are you pretending to be a madman, Hanson? And why not make
points against David Ball and others in here in a way that's
readable, rather than unreadable?
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<Rz0bd.2688$gy1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Joshua Halpern" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cR%ad.4022$Rp4.2955@trnddc01...
> > >>>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:25516292.0410...@posting.google.com...
> > >>>>Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition, 10:00 10 October 04
> > >>>>It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the
> > >>>>early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the
> > >>>>commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force.
> > >>>
> > >>>[hanson]
> > >>>Roger, Roger, Roger........"if Russia"..."IF" is the operative word....
> > >>>ahahahah........."if Russia sticks to the commitment it made "....
> > >>>news:TEyad.296$6k2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >>>The Ruskies, as usual, have no intent with Kydioto complyance
> > >>>in the first place....but you dreamy-eyed, well-intended
> > >>>little green idiots do not believe it. ....ahanahaha...But, then
> > >>>when you finally complain to the Ruskies, they will prove
> > >>>to you immediately and proudly that they indeed did & do so,
> > >>>by showing you their brand-new shiny, upgraded arsenal
> > >>>of ballistic missiles tipped with their latest multimega ton
> > >>>nukes and they'll insist that this their way of complying!
> > >>>They'll even offer you caviar & vodka to thank you for your
> > >>>help....for that "carbon tax" which YOU have paid....and that
> > >>>carbon that you now can be POTENTIALLY incinerated into
> > >>>because of your own green greed and enviro fanaticism.....
> > >>>AHAHAHA.........ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHHAAHA.....
> > >>
> [josh halpern]
> > >>Hanson, Hanson, Hanson.........Russia is honest, it stays
> > >>bought, well at least until the Euro starts to fall against
> > >>the dollar, and frankly don't hold your breath on that one.
> > >
> > > [hanson]
> > > Brilliant, Josh,..... but not quite convincing, because
> > > (1) you forgot an "if" in front of "Russia is honest,..."
> > > (2) The EU vs $ follows the same pattern that the Yen vs $
> > > did. Remember when the Japs bought "half" of the prime
> > > US real estate and then had to "sell" it back to us for 10
> > > cents on the dollar.
> >
> > Actually you are thinking of the Chinese for this round.
>
> No, I wasn't. But you are right, for *this* round. More than
> you think. The poor bastards are holding only our paper, the
> govt. bonds. And *paper* is just an instrument subject to
> negotiations.......ahahaha......it'll be interesting....
> >
> > Our European kin folk will face a
> > > similar situation, & on top of that they have to pay their
> > > dues for THEIR unification.... Remember how much it cost
> > > the US to do so? Remember the cost of our sacrifices?
> >
> > Hmm....I guess the Russians say the same thing to the
> > Europeans also.
> >
> Why not? But why should that help'em?
> >
> > > Our good green back will be back. Don't worry, Josh. Be a
> > > patriot, believe in America! It gave you what you have!
> > >
> > > Naturally, if you are so convinced of your view then do what
> > > George Soros did. Speculate with the EU/$ currencies.
> >
> > I have.
>
> Oh yeah? With how much? With the change you brought home
> from your last trip over there?.........AHAHAHAH.....AHAHA....
> But yours (*I have*) was a good come-back line......ahahaha..
> Thanks for the laugh, Josh.
> ahahaha........ahahahanson
>
> >
> > > Moneys on the order and magnitude of Soros' currency
> > > machinations do await you. Go for it. You'll love the USA
> > > when you make money, just like he does. But until you come
> > > & brag about it, till then, I'll go with my view that the little
> > > green idiots have fucked themselves with the carbon tax.
> > > Take care, Josh,
> > > hanson
> > >
O18-C-O16
According to David Ball you have not been able to support your claims
about soot and climate. Makes me wonder if you can support your claim
that diesel engines are bound to be sooty. What do you think about a
low tech two stroke diesel scooter using rudolph diesels original fuel
injection system(compressed air fuel-injection), smoky or clean
burning ?
Tip, increase the compression ratio, adjust the fuel injection timing
and run the vespa ET2 engine om dimethyl ether instead of gasoline.
http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcvespa/et2.html
http://www.ucg.ie/chem/chemsym.htm
hanson
news:99e8ce30.0410...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<Rz0bd.2688$gy1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>.
[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> Hanson, why are you so consistently abusive and weird in
> your posts on global climate?
>
[hanson]
ahahahahaha.....man, at 1st and 2nd sight, he doesn't beat
around his green bush here,...but comes out swinging with his
green bat, just like all those little green dingbats do....ahahaha..
[ref: start reading here when it says (*$$$$$$ above*)]
So then, greenseich, you are whining here about my take on
global climate. If you checked in my archive you'd noticed that
this (and probably the reason for your anger) is because I post
what you little green idiots do not want to hear about: ...
That the POLICIES resulting from climate research are pushed &
abused to make MONEY, $$$$$$$Billions of dollars, by folks and
intstitutions that haven't the slightest interest in the "environment".
Their environment is to coax the money out of the wallets of
little green idiots, like you, and these green sharpies know that
you are too idealistic, too green, to realize that you are their unpaid
enablers and facilitators helping them to harvest the last few
$$$ out of your wallets by permit charges, user fees and the
carbon tax, all reflected in form of higher item- & service prices
to you.....**and NOT giving you any guarantee that their scheme
is doing anything to the climate**.......You must be a recipient of
their graft, or are you that stupid NOT to see that they fuck you ?
The rich get richer & the poor get poorer from environmentalism.
Environmentalism as practiced defeats its own promised goals.
== IT'S A MONEY GAME, you little green idiots.......ahahahaha........
[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> When I click on your archives on Google, I get the
>impression that you're actually a reasonably intelligent
> person - well, except for your views of CO2 and GW.
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...a green gold digger is knocking.....
Thanks for studying my archive. I hope you had fun...ahahahaha
Unfortunately, you have set yourself up with your "except".
What qualification do you have to be the judge about what
intelligence there is on ANY view about CO2 & GW. You simply
demonstrated that you have green emotions, & that you rebel
against, and that you are intolerant toward differing views and
,....that makes you one of the little green idiots, who by definition
are not intelligent because they aren't cognizant of (*$$$$$$ above*)
[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> But you can't seem to reply to the simplest point made by
> other people in Talk:Environment without lots of "ahahahahas"
> in your text, sprinkled with "green turd" comments and
> other insults that don't add anything to your arguments.
[hanson]
Greenseich listen, hanson doesn't make arguments. hanson
doesn't debate. hanson makes statements. Take'em or leave'em.
hanson marches to his own drummer and hanson makes his
own music.......ahahahaha......and unlike you hanson does not
need to take refuge with, like you do, and quote from a writerling
who produces fiction for kids......ahahahaha...
It is interesting to see that you have noticed that "ahahaha"
and "green turd" are the most poignant features in my posts.
Obviously, it must be effective....highly crankative and motivating,
aren't they? Obviously too, try to fathom, that the posts I respond
to are ALWAYS full of green shit. And all their fanatical green shit
simply does elicit laughter from me (...ahahaha....AHAHAHA...=
is ASCIIIa for laughter). As for their green ejaculates they post, I
do simply categorize them with labels according to the general
green turd index...and I do so correctly. Why do you have problem
with such a simple procedure? ....ahahahaha....why should it be
my fault that all those enviros feel like little green idiots, and do get
cranked, when they post their green shit?...that makes me go into
ASCIIIa and indexing. ..See here now, Greenseich, how you have
defended greenism as if it were a religion?....YOUR GAJA RELIGION
that you have become a disciple of.....and a green one at that,
one that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the green bible
that makes you believe, proselytize and say that:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> You clearly have a point of view, and while it's a point of view
> I disagree with, it probably deserves some hearing in here. But
> what we mostly get from you is noise, not information.
>
[hanson]
......ahahahaha.......AHAHAHAHAHA......What is this "we" shit
here, greenseich? .....A touch of your green megalomania? ...
...ahahahaha... It would be more honest if you speak for yourself
and do admit that you have searched **with great interest**
for my pearls of my wisdom, even in my archive amongst a great
deal of "noise, not information" and you certainly missed the goodies,
which is not surprising, since you cant' even see (*$$$$$$ above*)
and refuse to know, and much less accept, that there are real
madmen out there who fuck you like Hogan's goat. Read and see
how these green turds have twisted your mind! (*$$$$$$ above*)
.....ahahaha........AHAHAHAHAHA........
[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> Why? In the Terry Pratchett "Discworld" novels I read for
> fun, people who write things with lots of "ahahahahahas"
> embedded in the text are usually madmen. Or people
> pretending to be madmen. Why are you pretending to be
> a madman, Hanson? ...
[hanson]
....ahahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA.....ahahaha.....AHAHAHA...
You should read more such novels and learn how to do lots
of those "ahahahahahas" yourself, instead of pontificating to
others what to do in your state of depressing, miserable green
turditis. The fact that you take refuge under the skirts of a fat
old dude who is a sci-fy and fantasy story writer for kids, indicates
that the level of your own intellect is insufficient to realize that
(*$$$$$$ above*) is happening to you and know that there
are real madmen out there who fuck you like Hogan's goat.
Read and see how these green shits have twisted your mind!
.....ahahaha........AHAHAHAHAHA........
[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> And why not make points against David Ball and others in here
> in a way that's readable, rather than unreadable?
[hanson]
.....ahahaha......first of all you lied to yourself again. You perfectly
well understood the gist AND the details in my posts. That you
are a bit slow in the uptake, that surely ain't my fault...ahahahaha..
Furthermore, why should I make any different points against mudBall
then I already have? Do you have a hard-on for him and asking me, in
a strange forlorn and gauche way, to beat on mudball more, so that
you can enjoy it?...........you are a semi devious, highly phony little
green prick. I like mudBall and the "others". They are my green
toys. So, my green friend, with your 2nd sight, here's the issue:
Why don't YOU take up the banner and you do what you want me
to do YOURSELF! What you just posted is typical green shit. Your notion
for others to do what yourself don't have the balls for.....that is typical
green turdism....illustrated by you beautifully. Yet, this is just one
example and there are millions of other such "lazy-green" examples
out there which is why the public has recognized that
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
ahahahaha......ahahahanson
Tequila
The United States, are not very united on this issue.
I think the following request, is very reasonable:
Europe, go first. ... ... Not just in ratifying some '''treaty''' that
says it take effect in ten (or whatever) years, but,
reduces your (a European nation) carbon use , say, one percent below that , you would
have otherwise used. Pass the national laws that would put an upper
limit on carbon use, to the effect that when you use your limit,
that's it.
Emmissions trading, carbon sinks, Canadian voodoo carbon accounting,
arbitrary baseline years, exempting international aviation, etc,
gives the impression of insincerity and bad faith.
Tequila
Ian St. John
> Europe, seems to want carbon limits.
No. They want climate change limits which include things that influence the
atmosphere such as methane, CO2 and other GHGs.
> The United States, are not very united on this issue.
Bipartisan, like every other issue.
> I think the following request, is very reasonable:
> Europe, go first. ...
Sure sure. Something like asking Canada to limit acid rain when MOST of it
comes from the Mississippi valley and all those antiquated and unregulated
coal power plants. It may be in nice to the U.S. for them to be absolved of
cleaning up their own shit, but it doesn't make for good neighbors.
> ... Not just in ratifying some '''treaty'''
> that says it take effect in ten (or whatever) years, but,
> reduces your (a European nation) carbon use , say, one percent below
> that , you would have otherwise used.
Treaties on international cooperation have reduced acid rain ( before
Bush ), checked Ozone depletion ( before Bush ) and cleaned up the Great
Lakes (before Bush). The whole 'rogue nation' thing is getting tired.
> Pass the national laws that would put an upper
> limit on carbon use, to the effect that when you use your limit,
> that's it.
Already done. Kyoto is scheduled to go into effect everywhere but the U.S.
where they are still stuck with a non-leader taking orders from the oil
lobby.
> Emmissions trading, carbon sinks, Canadian voodoo carbon accounting,
> arbitrary baseline years, exempting international aviation, etc,
> gives the impression of insincerity and bad faith.
We can see insincerity and bad faith all right. Look in a mirror.
Ellinor
> Obviously, it's not the first time that the U.S. has disagreed with the U.K.
Obviously not.
- ELlinor
Steve Schulin
hc...@yahoo.no (O18-C-O16) wrote:
> about soot and climate. ...
Mr. Ball has been flailing about the implications of soot emissions and
forcings for a long time. He has repeatedly mischaracterized the
conclusions I've voiced. I've grown accustomed to his ranting, none of
which, by the way, counters the claims in the post to which you replied.
> ... Makes me wonder if you can support your claim
> that diesel engines are bound to be sooty. What do you think about a
> low tech two stroke diesel scooter using rudolph diesels original fuel
> injection system(compressed air fuel-injection), smoky or clean
> burning ?
>
> Tip, increase the compression ratio, adjust the fuel injection timing
> and run the vespa ET2 engine om dimethyl ether instead of gasoline.
>
> http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcvespa/et2.html
> http://www.ucg.ie/chem/chemsym.htm
I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
of diesel scooters.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > Phil Hays wrote:
>
> >> The extra soot has a lifetime of what? Days? Weeks? Not more than
> >> that.
> >
> >Yet the albedo effect of soot deposition on ice and snow, according to
> >Hansen and Nazarenko, may be responsible for significant fraction of the
> >observed warming in recent decades. Without the effect of soot, perhaps
> >the Pacific islanders and the Inuits wouldn't be so alarmed about their
> >sea level and melt prospects.
>
> And some of the warming has been cancelled out by sulphate haze. The
> net effect = ?
>
> Not all the uncertainties are your friends.
The attribution studies which fail to account for soot are clearly
deficient, as are the conclusions based upon them. This applies to the
IPCC assessment reports and more recent work, such as by Levitus et al.
who ballyhooed the finding of anthropogenic fingerprint in ocean
temperature data when sulphate cooling was added as a forcing.
>
>
> >And explicitly without considering the effect of soot deposition on
> >albedo of ice and snow, Jacobson reported that his results suggest that
> >black carbon (BC) warms the air 360,000-840,000 times more effectively
> >per unit mass than does CO2, which, he says, "illustrates why a small
> >mass of BC can have such a large climate effect." Jacobson compares
> >present EU diesel emission limits, future EU diesel emission limits, and
> >even speculative future EU diesel emission limits. All are projected to
> >produce more warming, for many years, than the gasoline engines they
> >replace. The shortest counterproductive period is more than 30 years, as
> >best I recall.
>
> Yet if the EU stopped burning diesel today, most of climatic forcing
> would be gone by next month.
If the pro-Kyoto folks who express alarm about ice melt were really
concerned, they'd surely urge that the precautionary principle be
applied to the relatively recently adopted diesel-favoring vehicle tax
policies in European nations.
> >> The extra CO2 will be around for thousands of years.
> >
> >In an in press JGR paper, Jacobson says: "An analysis suggests that the
> >overall lifetime range of CO2 should be 30-95 years instead of 50-200
> >years..."
>
> CO2 doesn't have a single atmospheric lifetime. A calculation based
> on assuming that it does, as Jacobson's calculation is, is not and can
> not be very meaningful. The first "atmospheric half life" of CO2 is
> very short, less than a decade. The final fate of most the CO2
> released is to be used by weathering of rocks, a process with a time
> constant of ten's of thousands of years.
Some of the 245 storylines used by IPCC involve ambient atmospheric CO2
concentrations of over 1000 ppmv before 2100. Jacobson's conclusion is
quite meaningful in that lower atmospheric lifetime values than
previously assumed would tend to decrease the chance that we'll see a
doubling of ambient CO2 concentrations, much less the 1,000 ppm mark.
>
>
> >> Denying the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very thoughtful
> >> approach to me.
> >
> >Folks throw around that "denialist" label so much that it's easy to use
> >it as you do here. It's not denial to recognize that there's been little
> >effect from anthropogenic GHGs thus far, and that the state of the art
> >models are of dubious predictive value for purposes of policy.
>
> Much as the UN inspections that showed that Iraq had no WMD had no
> policy impact on the USA government, eh?
>
> Funny. In a sad sort of way.
The book's not closed on Iraq and WMD. But it is quite clear that Libya
was spurred to good effect by the Iraq invasion, and that sure doesn't
merit your kind of comments. The goal of a democratic Iraq is an
inspiring one. If you sad sack Bush-haters weren't so mired in hate, you
might just show a bit of sense.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > There's advantages and disadvantages associated with all types of
>> > energy. Accentuating the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very
>> > thoughtful approach to me. And this applies even if climate were the
>> > only concern. The use of tax system by European nations to favor diesel
>> > engines in new vehicles instead of gasoline engines in recent years is
>> > an example of acting without relevant info in ths regard. The extra soot
>> > from these well-intentioned diesels, even when stricter diesel engine
>> > emission standards go into force, may do more to melt ice and raise
>> > arctic temperature than all the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, not just
>> > the small amount of CO2 avoided by the vehicles affected by the tax
>> > changes.
>>
>> According to David Ball you have not been able to support your claims
>> about soot and climate. ...
>
>Mr. Ball has been flailing about the implications of soot emissions and
>forcings for a long time. He has repeatedly mischaracterized the
>conclusions I've voiced. I've grown accustomed to his ranting, none of
>which, by the way, counters the claims in the post to which you replied.
LOL. I notice you're unwilling to link cause and
effect...again. What is this, the 7th or 8th time I've asked you for
observational evidence supporting your position? So far, you've come
up with bupkas. I haven't mischaracterized anything. You've taken a
single modeling study with no observational support and made serious
allegations about everything from the validity of attribution studies
to diesel implementation in Europe. I'm asking you to validate the
study you are parroting. So far, all you've done is run away. Is it
worth me trying to get you to honestly answer a direct question? What
am I saying!! You!! Answer honestly!! Heaven forbid.
O18-C-O16
His rants gives you the opportunity to support your claims about
diesel soot and you fails to deliver. Why the heck should invisible
diesel soot be more dangerous than big brownish clouds of the stuff
from biomass burning or forest fires, like the Alaskan forest fires
that gave the North Pole a brown tan earlier this year
> > ... Makes me wonder if you can support your claim
> > that diesel engines are bound to be sooty. What do you think about a
> > low tech two stroke diesel scooter using rudolph diesels original fuel
> > injection system(compressed air fuel-injection), smoky or clean
> > burning ?
> >
> > Tip, increase the compression ratio, adjust the fuel injection timing
> > and run the vespa ET2 engine om dimethyl ether instead of gasoline.
> >
> > http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcvespa/et2.html
> > http://www.ucg.ie/chem/chemsym.htm
>
> I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
> diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
> standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
> already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
> of diesel scooters.
Diesel cars have nothing to do with do good mentality, it all boils
down to fuel economy. Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
BTW, dimethyl ether diesel scooters would not have been so good at
producing fertilizer.
Eric Swanson
>
>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
>>
>> I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
>> diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
>> standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
>> already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
>> of diesel scooters.
>
>Diesel cars have nothing to do with do good mentality, it all boils
>down to fuel economy. Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
>wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
>of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
NOx is a main ingredient of photochemical smog.
It mixes with VOC's and produces ozone. High concentrations of ozone
are the reason many counties in the U.S. do not meet emission limits.
If you can't imagine that, try doing some reading.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
hanson
news:5d02cf45.04102...@posting.google.com...
> Why the heck should invisible diesel soot be more dangerous
> than big brownish clouds of the stuff from biomass burning or
> forest fires, like the Alaskan forest fires that gave the North
> Pole a brown tan earlier this year
>
Invisible diesel soot is more dangerous, because it generates
far more fear which the green shits can use to promulgate
extortions via their permit charges, user-fees & enviro-carbon
taxes.... which YOU!!!! have to pay.........ahahahaha........
The green turds of course know that it won't produce any
graft for them if they go into a burning forest and cry/yell:
"permit charges, user-fees, and enviro-carbon taxes are due"
BTW, by/thru that brown, albeo depressing color from the Alaska
fires, how much more fresh water got delivered into the ocean
surface waters, fucking with the THC? Has that been answered
or is it carefully swept under the rug, because that "forcing" is
far more effective then the largest increase in anthropic CO2.
Not investigating that would allow the green shits to blame an
accelerated Temp increase on anthropo causes and increase their
graft from permit charges, user-fees and enviro-carbon taxes.
Such a "looking the other way" would be understandable as it
is standard procedure anyway, when it is useful to enviros.
AHAHAHAHA.... Green = $$$$$$$$$.......ahahahahaha.........
ahahahaha......ahahahanson
David Ball
>
>[2ndSight aka greenseich]
>> And why not make points against David Ball and others in here
>> in a way that's readable, rather than unreadable?
>
>[hanson]
>.....ahahaha......first of all you lied to yourself again. You perfectly
>well understood the gist AND the details in my posts. That you
>are a bit slow in the uptake, that surely ain't my fault...ahahahaha..
>Furthermore, why should I make any different points against mudBall
>then I already have? Do you have a hard-on for him and asking me, in
>a strange forlorn and gauche way, to beat on mudball more, so that
>you can enjoy it?...........you are a semi devious, highly phony little
>green prick. I like mudBall and the "others". They are my green
>toys. So, my green friend, with your 2nd sight, here's the issue:
ROTFL. Wipe your chin, hanson, you're drooling again. Any time
you feel like making a thoughtful cogent post, feel free to do so.
Personally, I don't think you're capable of it. You're a troll.
Nothing more. The only "toys" you have are the pretty blocks you while
away your days stacking one on top of the other while you slobber
incessently. Feel free to come back and play any time you get your
shit together enough to make an honest post.
Steve Schulin
> diesel soot and you fails to deliver. ...
I've often availed myself of such opportunity. Is there any particular
aspect of his repititious rants which you'd like to be revisited?
> ... Why the heck should invisible
> diesel soot be more dangerous than big brownish clouds of the stuff
> from biomass burning or forest fires, like the Alaskan forest fires
> that gave the North Pole a brown tan earlier this year
Biomass burning is an important source of black carbon. I'm not sure why
you apparently have the impression that I've ranked diesel soot in the
way your question suggests.
>
> > > ... Makes me wonder if you can support your claim
> > > that diesel engines are bound to be sooty. What do you think about a
> > > low tech two stroke diesel scooter using rudolph diesels original fuel
> > > injection system(compressed air fuel-injection), smoky or clean
> > > burning ?
> > >
> > > Tip, increase the compression ratio, adjust the fuel injection timing
> > > and run the vespa ET2 engine om dimethyl ether instead of gasoline.
> > >
> > > http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcvespa/et2.html
> > > http://www.ucg.ie/chem/chemsym.htm
> >
> > I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
> > diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
> > standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
> > already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
> > of diesel scooters.
>
> Diesel cars have nothing to do with do good mentality, it all boils
> down to fuel economy. ...
In country after country, the European tax incentives for diesels were
adopted because of the CO2 advantage. If fuel economy had been the goal
in and of itself, the incentives could have been based on, uh, fuel
economy.
> ... Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
> wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
> of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
I'm not urging a ban on diesels, I'm just pointing out that the rush to
do good things, climate-wise, resulted in counterproductive action. With
every diesel sold as a result of the incentives (and there have been
millions) at existing soot emission standards, the extra black carbon
forcing will exceed the avoided CO2 forcing for a long, long time. Even
under the tighter standards for cars sold next year, the
counterproductive period will be long. The shortest period of
counterproductivity estimated by Jacobson was in the 30-year range, and
that was based on (1) emissions standard stricter than yet adopted; (2)
no consideration of effect on albedo; and (3) assumption of longer
atmospheric lifetime of CO2 than now appears warranted.
>
> BTW, dimethyl ether diesel scooters would not have been so good at
> producing fertilizer.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > Phil Hays wrote:
>> >> The extra soot has a lifetime of what? Days? Weeks? Not more than
>> >> that.
>> >
>> >Yet the albedo effect of soot deposition on ice and snow, according to
>> >Hansen and Nazarenko, may be responsible for significant fraction of the
>> >observed warming in recent decades. Without the effect of soot, perhaps
>> >the Pacific islanders and the Inuits wouldn't be so alarmed about their
>> >sea level and melt prospects.
>>
>> And some of the warming has been cancelled out by sulphate haze. The
>> net effect = ?
>>
>> Not all the uncertainties are your friends.
>
>The attribution studies which fail to account for soot are clearly
>deficient,
No, they are not. Soot and sulfates have roughly similar lifetimes
and distributions. You could work out what that implies. Probably
will not, but you could.
> as are the conclusions based upon them. This applies to the
>IPCC assessment reports and more recent work, such as by Levitus et al.
>who ballyhooed the finding of anthropogenic fingerprint in ocean
>temperature data when sulphate cooling was added as a forcing.
>>
>>
>> >And explicitly without considering the effect of soot deposition on
>> >albedo of ice and snow, Jacobson reported that his results suggest that
>> >black carbon (BC) warms the air 360,000-840,000 times more effectively
>> >per unit mass than does CO2, which, he says, "illustrates why a small
>> >mass of BC can have such a large climate effect." Jacobson compares
>> >present EU diesel emission limits, future EU diesel emission limits, and
>> >even speculative future EU diesel emission limits. All are projected to
>> >produce more warming, for many years, than the gasoline engines they
>> >replace. The shortest counterproductive period is more than 30 years, as
>> >best I recall.
>>
>> Yet if the EU stopped burning diesel today, most of climatic forcing
>> would be gone by next month.
>
>If the pro-Kyoto folks who express alarm about ice melt were really
>concerned, they'd surely urge that the precautionary principle be
>applied to the relatively recently adopted diesel-favoring vehicle tax
>policies in European nations.
Which should we worry more about: CO2, which will be around for
thousands of years, or soot which will be gone by next week: Duh.
>> >> The extra CO2 will be around for thousands of years.
>> >
>> >In an in press JGR paper, Jacobson says: "An analysis suggests that the
>> >overall lifetime range of CO2 should be 30-95 years instead of 50-200
>> >years..."
>>
>> CO2 doesn't have a single atmospheric lifetime. A calculation based
>> on assuming that it does, as Jacobson's calculation is, is not and can
>> not be very meaningful. The first "atmospheric half life" of CO2 is
>> very short, less than a decade. The final fate of most the CO2
>> released is to be used by weathering of rocks, a process with a time
>> constant of ten's of thousands of years.
>
>Some of the 245 storylines used by IPCC involve ambient atmospheric CO2
>concentrations of over 1000 ppmv before 2100. Jacobson's conclusion is
>quite meaningful in that lower atmospheric lifetime values than
>previously assumed would tend to decrease the chance that we'll see a
>doubling of ambient CO2 concentrations, much less the 1,000 ppm mark.
Jacobson's conclusion isn't and can't be meaningful because it is
based on a faulty assumption. CO2 doesn't have a single atmospheric
lifetime. A calculation based on assuming that CO2 does have a single
atmospheric lifetime, as Jacobson's calculation is, is not and can not
be very meaningful.
>> >> Denying the carbon dioxide risk doesn't seem like a very thoughtful
>> >> approach to me.
>> >
>> >Folks throw around that "denialist" label so much that it's easy to use
>> >it as you do here. It's not denial to recognize that there's been little
>> >effect from anthropogenic GHGs thus far, and that the state of the art
>> >models are of dubious predictive value for purposes of policy.
>>
>> Much as the UN inspections that showed that Iraq had no WMD had no
>> policy impact on the USA government, eh?
>>
>> Funny. In a sad sort of way.
>
>The book's not closed on Iraq and WMD.
Will it ever be closed?
> But it is quite clear that Libya was spurred to good effect by the
> Iraq invasion, and that sure doesn't merit your kind of comments.
No, that's not even close to clear.
>The goal of a democratic Iraq is an inspiring one.
Which isn't why we invaded Iraq. WMD, and big stockpiles of them,
remember?
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > According to David Ball you have not been able to support your claims
>> > > about soot and climate. ...
>> >
>> > Mr. Ball has been flailing about the implications of soot emissions and
>> > forcings for a long time. He has repeatedly mischaracterized the
>> > conclusions I've voiced. I've grown accustomed to his ranting, none of
>> > which, by the way, counters the claims in the post to which you replied.
>>
>> His rants gives you the opportunity to support your claims about
>> diesel soot and you fails to deliver. ...
>
>I've often availed myself of such opportunity. Is there any particular
>aspect of his repititious rants which you'd like to be revisited?
LOL. Perfesser, you're too funny. I see you're dancing around
the issue again.
>
>
>> ... Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
>> wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
>> of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
>
>I'm not urging a ban on diesels, I'm just pointing out that the rush to
>do good things, climate-wise, resulted in counterproductive action. With
>every diesel sold as a result of the incentives (and there have been
>millions) at existing soot emission standards, the extra black carbon
>forcing will exceed the avoided CO2 forcing for a long, long time. Even
>under the tighter standards for cars sold next year, the
>counterproductive period will be long. The shortest period of
>counterproductivity estimated by Jacobson was in the 30-year range, and
>that was based on (1) emissions standard stricter than yet adopted; (2)
>no consideration of effect on albedo; and (3) assumption of longer
>atmospheric lifetime of CO2 than now appears warranted.
>>
You haven't shown any kind of counterproductive action,
Perfesser. You've got a single modeling study that says A. I've asked
you repeatedly to back up said study with observational evidence. The
study you are parroting has serious problems observationally. The
observational record does not support the statements you are making
and apparently you aren't bright enough to understand. If you make a
cause and effect statement like, "black carbon accounts for X percent
of the observed forcing", when X is substantial, you should be able to
discern a noticeable footprint of black carbon in the observational
record. You run away every time I've asked you to do that.
You've claimed that according to H&N, the main impacts of BC
occur during the winter. I've pointed out that the majority of the
warming is occurring at high northern latitudes. In fact, you're fond
of pointing out that only around 20% of the Jones' gridboxes show
statistically significant warming. That falls into the DUH!! category
since most of the warming is just now beginning to rise out of the
background noise. At high northern latitudes that is most definitely
not the case. We have evidence, and I've crunched the numbers myself,
of strong statistically significant warming taking place at high
latitudes. Where do the effects of BC fall into the observational
record? They apparently don't. BC requires sunlight to have an impact.
The amount of sunlight is minimal. It also doesn't account for the
significant changes taking place with overnight lows, which are rising
considerably faster than day-time highs. Of course, in Schulinland the
sun is usually up in the middle of the arctic night, but in the real
world, it's pretty dark.
Any statements you make about the impacts of BC are
necessarily fallacious since you cannot back up your pet studies with
observational evidence. It also makes one wonder just how serious you
are about the studies you are parroting when you take the cowardly
tack you are.
O18-C-O16
I've heard that smoke from biomass burning and SO2/NOx areosols from
diesel engines cools the Earth by reflecting sunlight and that the
tiny invisible soot particles from diesel engines heats the Earth by
making such areosols clouds less reflective.
> > > > ... Makes me wonder if you can support your claim
> > > > that diesel engines are bound to be sooty. What do you think about a
> > > > low tech two stroke diesel scooter using rudolph diesels original fuel
> > > > injection system(compressed air fuel-injection), smoky or clean
> > > > burning ?
> > > >
> > > > Tip, increase the compression ratio, adjust the fuel injection timing
> > > > and run the vespa ET2 engine om dimethyl ether instead of gasoline.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcvespa/et2.html
> > > > http://www.ucg.ie/chem/chemsym.htm
> > >
> > > I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
> > > diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
> > > standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
> > > already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
> > > of diesel scooters.
> >
> > Diesel cars have nothing to do with do good mentality, it all boils
> > down to fuel economy. ...
>
> In country after country, the European tax incentives for diesels were
> adopted because of the CO2 advantage. If fuel economy had been the goal
> in and of itself, the incentives could have been based on, uh, fuel
> economy.
Exactly what tax incentives do you have in mind, the carbon tax ?
> > ... Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
> > wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
> > of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
>
> I'm not urging a ban on diesels, I'm just pointing out that the rush to
> do good things, climate-wise, resulted in counterproductive action. With
> every diesel sold as a result of the incentives (and there have been
> millions) at existing soot emission standards, the extra black carbon
> forcing will exceed the avoided CO2 forcing for a long, long time. Even
> under the tighter standards for cars sold next year, the
> counterproductive period will be long. The shortest period of
> counterproductivity estimated by Jacobson was in the 30-year range, and
> that was based on (1) emissions standard stricter than yet adopted; (2)
> no consideration of effect on albedo; and (3) assumption of longer
> atmospheric lifetime of CO2 than now appears warranted.
But NOx and SO2 areosols from diesel engines could possibly reflect
more sunlight than the amount absorbed by diesel
soot.(http://www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00c1.html ). I'm not
certain that Jacobsons calculations on diesel soot are correct.
O18-C-O16
> In article <5d02cf45.04102...@posting.google.com>, hc...@yahoo.no says...
> >
> >Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> >>
> >> I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
> >> diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
> >> standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
> >> already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
> >> of diesel scooters.
> >
> >Diesel cars have nothing to do with do good mentality, it all boils
> >down to fuel economy. Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
> >wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
> >of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
>
> NOx is a main ingredient of photochemical smog.
> It mixes with VOC's and produces ozone. High concentrations of ozone
> are the reason many counties in the U.S. do not meet emission limits.
>
> If you can't imagine that, try doing some reading.
I have read a lot about NOx, hydroxyl radicals(ozone precursor) and
VOC's. In short it goes something like this:
1. Very high NOx cons eats up ozone and sometimes paradoxically
protects city parks from oxidation stress(city center)
2. Medium high NOx and natural VOC's from heat stressed vegetation
cause harmful levels ozone and photochemical smog.(High pressure
regions, Suburban areas, highways, highly populated and/or highly
industrialised countries)
3. Medium low NOx acts as a source of hydroxyl radicals that oxidise
VOC's, toxic pollution and greenhouse gases like methane. It also
contributes to acid rain and nitrogen fertilization of cold/wet
soils.(Rural areas far from any significant source of pollution)
It was number 3, nitrogen fertilization of cold/wet soils in rural
areas I could not imagine as harmful.
hanson
message news:pcgrn0ttc9gfur2q7...@4ax.com...
> >[2ndSight aka greenseich]
> >> And why not make points against David Ball and others in here
> >> in a way that's readable, rather than unreadable?
> >
> >.....ahahaha......first of all you lied to yourself again. You perfectly
> >well understood the gist AND the details in my posts. That you
> >are a bit slow in the uptake, that surely ain't my fault...ahahahaha..
> >Furthermore, why should I make any different points against mudBall
> >then I already have? Do you have a hard-on for him and asking me, in
> >that you can enjoy it?........you are a semi devious, highly phony little
>
[mudBall hears his master hanson and comes running]
> ROTFL. Wipe your chin, hanson, you're drooling again. Any time
> you feel like making a thoughtful cogent post, feel free to do so.
> Personally, I don't think you're capable of it. You're a troll. Nothing
> away your days stacking one on top of the other while you slobber
> incessently. Feel free to come back and play any time you get your
> shit together enough to make an honest post.
>
ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHA....you hear: "mudBall!" and you come
running...AHAHAHAHA..."good doggie, nice mutt".... But, what do I
notice, to boot?...ahahahaha....you do have a maso streak, mudBall?
You are inviting and enjoying that **to beat on mudball more**?
Do you need my attention so bad, that you yearn for me, mudBall?
But, I wont' beat on you this time, mudBall, for complimentary reasons.
ahahahaahaha........ actually, mudBall, I am ROTFLMA that you have
acknowledged, even in your gauche way, that you are my ##toy##......
ahahahaha......But then, mudBall, have always been a good doggie
you the favorite mutt in my cyber kennel, ....ahahaha....
"Heel mudBall!", .....and thanks for your barks, mudBall, ahahahaha..
hahahaha.......ahahahanson
Steve Schulin
hc...@yahoo.no (O18-C-O16) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> > hc...@yahoo.no (O18-C-O16) wrote:
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> > > > hc...@yahoo.no (O18-C-O16) wrote:
> > > > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
You and I probably agree that there's lots of mechanisms involved in the
climatic importance of particles. But I can't agree with your comments
as written. Regarding smoke from biomass burning, for example, your
claim about the sign of the albedo change runs counter to observations
reported in studies of fires in Brazil and Zambia. Jacobson discusses
these in a paper published this summer in J. Climate (17:2909). That
doesn't mean that the overall forcing is different than you portray. The
way Jacobson describes the effects of biomass burning is amongst the
more poetic things I've read in science journals: "Figure 6f shows the
10-yr-averaged modeled effect of biomass burning on near-surface
temperatures. The major regions of cooling were throughout the Southern
Hemisphere oceans from 15° to 80°S. The figure also shows some cooling
over Brazil but some warming over Africa and Eastern Europe and regions
of Asia. The temperature-change patterns due to biomass burning cannot
be compared directly with observed temperature-change patterns because
the latter are affected by all pollutants, which cause net warming,
whereas the former are affected by a subset of pollutants, which cause
short-term cooling. The warming in some biomass-burning regions and
cooling in others is consistent with the fact that biomass burning may
increase or decrease local temperatures (Tarasova et al. 1999). It also
results because the plot shows a 10-yr average, whereas biomass burning
occurs primarily in the dry season."
"Some of the greatest temperature changes in the global and 10-yr
average were over regions of snow and/or sea ice cover (e.g., northern
Russia, northern Canada, and over the Antarctic continent and its sea
ice). Changes in clouds and winds over these regions due to biomass
burning (e.g., Fig. 6c) triggered changes in snow and sea ice cover,
which changed albedo, which changed absorbed solar radiation, which
changed ground temperature, which changed sensible and latent heat
fluxes to the air, which changed air temperature."
As for your notion that diesel engine emissions might have net cooling
effect, I confess ignorance of any studies which tend to support that
claim. I'd be happy to consider any you suggest.
> > > > > ... Makes me wonder if you can support your claim
> > > > > that diesel engines are bound to be sooty. What do you think about a
> > > > > low tech two stroke diesel scooter using rudolph diesels original
> > > > > fuel
> > > > > injection system(compressed air fuel-injection), smoky or clean
> > > > > burning ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tip, increase the compression ratio, adjust the fuel injection timing
> > > > > and run the vespa ET2 engine om dimethyl ether instead of gasoline.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcvespa/et2.html
> > > > > http://www.ucg.ie/chem/chemsym.htm
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to stress that there's already been millions of do-gooder
> > > > diesel engine vehicles added to the roads of Europe, under existing
> > > > standards. This share of the potential counterproductivity has thus
> > > > already been committed. I have nothing but best wishes for the benefits
> > > > of diesel scooters.
> > >
> > > Diesel cars have nothing to do with do good mentality, it all boils
> > > down to fuel economy. ...
> >
> > In country after country, the European tax incentives for diesels were
> > adopted because of the CO2 advantage. If fuel economy had been the goal
> > in and of itself, the incentives could have been based on, uh, fuel
> > economy.
>
> Exactly what tax incentives do you have in mind, the carbon tax ?
I'm not recommending a tax. I'm referring to the sales tax changes
adopted in recent years by (as best I recall) every one of the original
EU nations except UK.
>
> > > ... Modern non-smelly diesels car are truly a
> > > wonderful invention. Can't imagine that the slight fertilizer effect
> > > of diesel exhaust(NOx = nitrogen fertilizer) cause any harm at all.
> >
> > I'm not urging a ban on diesels, I'm just pointing out that the rush to
> > do good things, climate-wise, resulted in counterproductive action. With
> > every diesel sold as a result of the incentives (and there have been
> > millions) at existing soot emission standards, the extra black carbon
> > forcing will exceed the avoided CO2 forcing for a long, long time. Even
> > under the tighter standards for cars sold next year, the
> > counterproductive period will be long. The shortest period of
> > counterproductivity estimated by Jacobson was in the 30-year range, and
> > that was based on (1) emissions standard stricter than yet adopted; (2)
> > no consideration of effect on albedo; and (3) assumption of longer
> > atmospheric lifetime of CO2 than now appears warranted.
>
> But NOx and SO2 areosols from diesel engines could possibly reflect
> more sunlight than the amount absorbed by diesel
> soot.(http://www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00c1.html ). I'm not
> certain that Jacobsons calculations on diesel soot are correct.
That's a good read, thanks. The March 2000 Rosenfeld paper (Science
287:1793) discussed therein did not attempt any kind of "net"
warming/cooling analysis. In fact, the paper's focus was on
precipitation changes downstream from pollution sources. The link also
highlights the perspective by Toon (Science 287:1763). A couple of
months later, an article co-authored by Toon was published in Science
(288:1042 -- Ackerman et al. Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot)
which explicitly analyzed "net" issues including both the type of
indirect forcing highlighted in the link you provide and the direct
forcing mentioned in your comments. The Ackerman et al. abstract gives a
hint as to their interesting findings: "Measurements and models show
that enhanced aerosol concentrations can augment cloud albedo not only
by increasing total droplet cross-sectional area, but also by reducing
precipitation and thereby increasing cloud water content and cloud
coverage. Aerosol pollution is expected to exert a net cooling influence
on the global climate through these conventional mechanisms. Here, we
demonstrate an opposite mechanism through which aerosols can reduce
cloud cover and thus significantly offset aerosol-induced radiative
cooling at the top of the atmosphere on a regional scale. In model
simulations, the daytime clearing of trade cumulus is hastened and
intensified by solar heating in dark haze (as found over much of the
northern Indian Ocean during the northeast monsoon)."
This one indirect effect of soot which Ackerman et al. analyze may be
enough, they conclude, to totally offset the direct and indirect cooling
attributed to aerosols. This is a big deal. And it does not even try to
factor in the other direct and indirect soot forcings detailed by
Jacobson or the albedo effect from deposition on ice and snow as first
estimated by Hansen and Nazarenko.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
LOL - from reading your comments, the casual observer might not imagine
that H&N discuss why the greatest high latitude impact occurs in the
winter. It's not because they think the sun is shining most in winter.
I've repeatedly pointed you to the explanation they present -- it is
because of the sea-ice changes. When previously describing the GCMs
which included this warming mechanism, you used such language as "the
best science available".
> Any statements you make about the impacts of BC are
> necessarily fallacious since you cannot back up your pet studies with
> observational evidence. It also makes one wonder just how serious you
> are about the studies you are parroting when you take the cowardly
> tack you are.
Very truly,
BallB...@nuclear.com
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
David Ball
>>
>[mudBall hears his master hanson and comes running]
>> ROTFL. Wipe your chin, hanson, you're drooling again. Any time
>> you feel like making a thoughtful cogent post, feel free to do so.
>> Personally, I don't think you're capable of it. You're a troll. Nothing
>> more. The only ##toys## you have are the pretty blocks you while
>> away your days stacking one on top of the other while you slobber
>> incessently. Feel free to come back and play any time you get your
>> shit together enough to make an honest post.
>>
>[hanson]
>ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHA....you hear: "mudBall!" and you come
>running...AHAHAHAHA..."good doggie, nice mutt".... But, what do I
>notice, to boot?...ahahahaha....you do have a maso streak, mudBall?
>You are inviting and enjoying that **to beat on mudball more**?
>Do you need my attention so bad, that you yearn for me, mudBall?
>But, I wont' beat on you this time, mudBall, for complimentary reasons.
>ahahahaahaha........ actually, mudBall, I am ROTFLMA that you have
>acknowledged, even in your gauche way, that you are my ##toy##......
>ahahahaha......But then, mudBall, have always been a good doggie
>you the favorite mutt in my cyber kennel, ....ahahaha....
>"Heel mudBall!", .....and thanks for your barks, mudBall, ahahahaha..
>hahahaha.......ahahahanson
Actually, troll, I can't resist making you dance. You do it
devinely too. LOL.
hanson
> Actually, troll, I can't resist making you dance. You do it
> devinely too. LOL.
>
ahahaha......AHAHAHAHA......you are coming onto me, mudBall!
For crying out loud!...not that close!...you filthy old green mutt.
Go lick yourself, mudBall......ahahahaha.....
ahahaha......ahahahanson
O18-C-O16
What about this one:
"Jacobson says that net global warming to date is due to warming by
greenhouse gases and soot, significantly offset by cooling due to
reflective particles, such as SULFATE and NITRATE from multiple
pollution sources. Eliminating all fossil-fuel soot could reduce more
than 40 percent of net global warming to date in three to five years,
he says. Cutting fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions by a third would
have the same effect, but only after 50 to 200 years."
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december12/diesel-a.html
Sulfate and nitrate are harmful health damaging pollutants that should
not be used to counter global warming. And the fertilizer effect from
nitrates(NOx + water) could possibly cause some warming in the long
run according to this NASA article:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/frozen_north.html
The soil beneath the vegetation seen in the picture is most likely
peat moss. When drained or added fertilizer peat moss decay rapidly
increases, releasing CO2.
Steve Schulin
hc...@yahoo.no (O18-C-O16) wrote, in part:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-73D...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> > As for your notion that diesel engine emissions might have net cooling
> > effect, I confess ignorance of any studies which tend to support that
> > claim. I'd be happy to consider any you suggest.
>
> What about this one:
> "Jacobson says that net global warming to date is due to warming by
> greenhouse gases and soot, significantly offset by cooling due to
> reflective particles, such as SULFATE and NITRATE from multiple
> pollution sources. Eliminating all fossil-fuel soot could reduce more
> than 40 percent of net global warming to date in three to five years,
> he says. Cutting fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions by a third would
> have the same effect, but only after 50 to 200 years."
> http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december12/diesel-a.html
Well, I'm tickled to see you cite Jacobson, but I'm at a loss as to
where you see evidence of net cooling from diesel engines in this
passage, or in the linked press release, or in any of his papers. The
counterproductive nature, warming-wise, of the European tax incentives
for diesel vehicles are quite eloquently described in the link you
provide. I hope everyone will read it.
> Sulfate and nitrate are harmful health damaging pollutants that should
> not be used to counter global warming. And the fertilizer effect from
> nitrates(NOx + water) could possibly cause some warming in the long
> run according to this NASA article:
> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/frozen_north.html
>
> The soil beneath the vegetation seen in the picture is most likely
> peat moss. When drained or added fertilizer peat moss decay rapidly
> increases, releasing CO2.
Did you mean to post these two paragraphs here? They don't buttress the
"net cooling" notion.
2ndSight
I asked you, but I would like to repeat it.
Your messages on global warming are so filled with
rather stupid insults and so tarted up with "Ahahahahaha's"
that they're practically unreadable. And I still don't
understand why. So my question is -- WHY?
I guess the idea is to draw attention to your message by any means
necessary ... but I gotta say that for me, it isn't working. Most of
what comes through is the invective and the craziness, which I presume
is faked.
On another, more serious topic: From briefly glancing at your post
below - very briefly - I see you making the case that while foolish
green idealists" like me are warning against the effects of global
climate change, some evil corporation or group of corporations
somewhere
is hoping to make money by exploiting the issue.
Well, I hope this is true, actually. Because we live in a capitalist
and commercial society, and while I'm not really happy about that,
I can't imagine any major environmental or economic change coming
about in the US or Western Europe - good or bad -- that someone
isn't going to exploit for money.
In fact, the only way for human civilization to reverse direction
on global warming -- failing a green socialist revolution, which I
don't
expect soon -- is going to be for corporate interests somewhere
to develop a vested interest in making the change.
So you're probably right about some profit-hungry people in
the corporate suites planning how they're going to make money from
the transition to a more sustainable energy system.
Well,so what?
The global oil companies and OPEC certainly make money
from our present global energy system -- lots of money. If
other corporate greedheads aksi try to make money from promoting
alternative energy - what's going to be new?
Not much, I think.
But Hanson, if you want to make any serious
proposals as to how the world can shift away from its present
ruinous dependence on fossil fuels without it costing the
average consumer anything - that would be wonderful. Please
enlighten us as to the best and most humane strategy to take.
But don't just call people names for trying to draw the world's
attention to a real problem.
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<2ZYed.920$kM....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Roger Coppock
> Hanson, I don't expect any reasonable answer to the question
> I asked you, but I would like to repeat it.
>
> Your messages on global warming are so filled with
> rather stupid insults and so tarted up with "Ahahahahaha's"
> that they're practically unreadable. And I still don't
> understand why. So my question is -- WHY?
>
> I guess the idea is to draw attention to your message by any means
> necessary ... but I gotta say that for me, it isn't working. Most of
> what comes through is the invective and the craziness, which I presume
> is faked.
No, my sources, or "second sight," on the troll who posts under
the pen name "hanson" say that he is not faking craziness. Our
"hanson" has a history of real world psychological problems.
Thomas Palm
> Well, I'm tickled to see you cite Jacobson,
Let me cite Jacobson too, where he comments on the use Bush made of his
paper:
"Whereas control of black carbon is an effective method per unit mass
emission of slowing global warming, control of greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide is necessary for reversing warming, as stated
in the above-mentioned paper. As such, the President was incorrect to
suggest that the omission of black carbon (or ozone) had bearing on the
remaining goals of the Protocol, which were to reduce major greenhouse
gases. In other words, the Protocol would be strengthened by including
black carbon, but it is not flawed in the absence of its inclusion."
Steve Schulin
Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote:
LOL - you notice he didn't go so far as to congratulate the European
nations for their do-gooder diesel policy, warming-wise. As for
Jacobson's apparent endorsement of what he calls the "goals" of Kyoto
Protocol, I don't begrudge him his opinion. And knowing how the green
zealots slime perceived traitors (Lomborg, Bellamy, and Lovelock are
good examples), I can sure understand Jacobson's extraordinary
politicized essay in terms of preemptive defense or somesuch.
charliew2
hanson
news:10o2i11...@corp.supernews.com...
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:25516292.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > fernba...@yahoo.com (2ndSight) wrote in message
> news:<99e8ce30.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Hanson, I don't expect any reasonable answer to the question
> > > I asked you, but I would like to repeat it.
> > >
> > > Your messages on global warming are so filled with
> > > rather stupid insults and so tarted up with "Ahahahahaha's"
> > > that they're practically unreadable. And I still don't
> > > understand why. So my question is -- WHY?
> > >
> > > I guess the idea is to draw attention to your message by any means
> > > necessary ... but I gotta say that for me, it isn't working. Most of
> > > what comes through is the invective and the craziness, which I presume
> > > is faked.
> >
> > No, my sources, or "second sight," on the troll who posts under
> > the pen name "hanson" say that he is not faking craziness. Our
> > "hanson" has a history of real world psychological problems.
>
> Cite?
>
[hanson]
ahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA...Charlie, no cite. Roger Poppcock is
demonstrating here (his and) the classical attitude, character
and reaction common to environmentalists, Commies and Nazis:
"if they don't like what they hear what you say, then they first
declare you crazy, then put you into intuitions (KZ, Gulags) where
they kill you..." ......all in the good name of/for their cause, be
that RED, GREEN or BROWN. Hence the term ENVIRO NAZI...
......ahahahahahaha......AHAHAHAHA.....ahahahaha.....
Read my response to 2ndSight under
"Kyoto protocol is the beginning... of the end"
Roger, old friend, thanks for your friendly, warm feelings for me.
ahahahaha......AHAHAHA.....ahahahanson
hanson
> stupid insults and so tarted up with "Ahahahahaha's"
> that they're practically unreadable. And I still don't
> understand why. So my question is -- WHY?
>
Only you, yourself, can answer that WHY, in view that you HAVE
perfectly understood every point I raised. Your whining about
the "insults" & "Aaha"s I could equally take as an insult by you
to me and I can't help it when green shits, green turds and
all those little green idiots elicit chuckles to roaring AHAHAHA's
from me. They should feel extraordinarily honored that I listen
to their green shit and comment on it......ahaha.....AHAHAHA...
So, I conclude that you simply want to talk. Ok, you asked for it.
...and ye shall receive refinements of deja vue.....AHAHAHAHA.....
>
[2ndSigh]
> I see you making the case that while foolish "green idealists"
> like me are warning against the effects of global climate
> change, some evil corporation or group of corporations
> somewhere is hoping to make money by exploiting the issue.
> the corporate suites planning how they're going to make money
> from the transition to a more sustainable energy system.
> Well,so what?
>
"Well,so what?" Are you mad or some soul-less, misanthropic green
fucker. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, THAT'S WHAT
is happening. Only money changes hands from you, the little green
idiots, to the rich quasi-green conartists. And you say "well, so what?"
It ain't gonna a be transition to a more sustainable energy system.
They are gonna milk the current state of fear until the green cow is
carbon taxed dry and then it's back to oil biz as usual. Their usual
propaganda that oil is going to run out is the scare tactic by the oil
boys to keep the oil prices high & its NOT any different then the GREEN
SHITS SELLING FEAR, that the end and extinction is near, in order to
milk the public dry via permit charges, user fees & enviro/carbon taxes.
Now, as you can see they have combined forces via the carbon tax
in order to loot the public treasuries globally and more efficiently!
Can you see now that and why....
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now speeding up =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are howling =
>
[2ndSigh]
> The global oil companies and OPEC certainly make money
> from our present global energy system -- lots of money. If
> other corporate greedheads aksi try to make money from
> promoting alternative energy - what's going to be new?
> Not much, I think.
>
[hanson]
Exactly, not much is going to happen. Your alternative energy
corp. greedheads will spend theirs and their investors last dime
and then as soon as they become an even faint threat to the
oil boys, the oilers drop the oil price and **bankrupt** the green
energy dudes.(Their ain't any cheaper E-source then fossil CH)
Aren't you aware of this cycle? Started in FL in 1917....ahahaha...
Worse, the green turds themselves with their SALES OF FEAR
suppress any re-emergence of alternative, read nuclear energy.
Other green energies sources are also surpressed by green
shits, like Kennedy, who doesn't want to have wind farms in
his neighborhood, or the ARA green turds who complain and
sued that the Propeller blades kill too many birds...ahahaha.....
[2ndSigh]
> But Hanson, if you want to make any serious proposals
> as to how the world can shift away from its present
> ruinous dependence on fossil fuels without it costing the
> average consumer anything - that would be wonderful.
[hanson]
That "ruinous" is only a reaction of your green moldy mind
which you got after you had been infected by the edicts
from the green bible and you became a little green idiot who
believed in the teachings of the enviro icons who told you
that:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true" ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/polit/soc] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
[2ndSigh]
> Please enlighten us as to the best and most humane
> strategy to take. But don't just call people names for
> trying to draw the world's attention to a real problem.
>
[hanson]
You express the usual intellectual laziness inherent in all
little green idiots, namely to whine and sell fear that doom
is at the door step, in order to extort permit charges, user
fees and enviro/carbon taxes. Then you, like all green
shits you want solutions/strategy, like e.g. installing costly
ANTI pollution equipment for which you demand ANOTHER
set of permit charges, user fees and enviro/carbon taxes.
Green cocksuckers have the public coming and going...AND
they are still whining for MORE enviro money extortions...
WHAT HAVE GREEN SHITS CONTRIBUTED BESIDES STEALING?
..WHO pays?.........the general public, including all its little
green unpaid idiots, because all that green extorted money
from permit charges, user fees and enviro/and carbon taxes
was bleeding off FROM higher prices & service costs, incl.
health care costs.....in ways the general public and the little
green idiots, the unpaid enablers and facilities for the $$$
harvests of the sharp green shits, are NOT aware of.
Then when these extortions do not yield enough $$ you get
class action suits, via green shysters and Brokobitches.
But the environment.....fuck the environment... that MUST
be left in bad condition, else the green $$$ stream dries up!
Your enlightenment is only gona come when you finally
realise that it's you, YOURSELF, that is fucking yourself!
ahahahaha.......But, you like that coszy green feeling....
[2ndSigh]
> Please enlighten us... But don't just call people names for
> trying to draw the world's attention to a real problem.
>
[hanson]
Gimme one good reason why NOT to call people "green turds,
green shits and little green idiots", when enviros have done
NOTHING but extorted money from hard working people and
leaving the world off as bad as it was when they started
with their legalized extortion crime spree in the 1970's?
The answer for real change is easy! Invest in strategies to
ADAPT to the changes in a changing world/climate, ....but that
ain't gonna happen because it's easier to make money by selling
phony protection schemes, screaming that you are under attack
by polluters who make CO2, asbestos, Cr6....etc....a la green
style, thru legalized extortions to get graft from permit charges,
user fees and enviro/carbon taxes.......
Note: Not one, not even the worst poison has ever been banned.
Banning will mean loss of green $$$ from permit charges, user
fees and enviro/carbon taxes. So, poisons are "controlled" instead,
in order to keep the green extortion $$$ streams going.......
......ahahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA.......ahahahaha
Now, look in the mirror & you'll see one of these criminal green
assholes which are responsible for what YOU are crying and
whining about......ahahaha.....AAHAHAHA.....ahaAHAHAHAHA..
....ahahahaha.........ahaAHAHAHAHA.........One more thing:
take a 2ndSigh and a 2ndSight to see why it is so easy to sell fear
by screaming that you are attacked: Find out who the teacher of
the above mentioned green idols of the 1970's was, and why
these enviro role models are called eco-Nazis.......
Nazi chief Hermann Goering, (1945 under interrogation) shrugged:
"....Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked.... It works the same in any country."
Do you get the deep social implications of what environmentalism
ultimately will bring.....ahahahaha....I bet you don't wanna hear it!
ahahahaha......ahahahanson
Joshua Halpern
charliew2
Let's see the logic in this Josh, shall we? I see a very tough ad hominem
attack, implying that another poster is mentally unstable. This is
bordering on slander. Hanson, in principle, could probably take legal
action if the associated comments are not true. I ask for a cite, and you
give me a wimpy reply that I haven't posted any cites, so I am not due any.
That's very convenient.
Have your past cyber feuds with Hanson colored your vision so much that you
are willing to use any tactic necessary to silence a rival poster? Have you
become so convinced of your arguments that the ends justify the means?
With all due respect, I don't know Hanson personally, and neither one of us
has ever done a favor for the other, nor are we related in any way. Despite
one or two of my own "run ins" with Hanson, I respect his right to his
opinion, because I am a BIG proponent of free speech. In addition, I
consider character assassination and ad hominem attacks a very poor debating
tool, normally used only by the crowd who are losing an argument, and who
can think of no other way to sidetrack an issue. If Hanson is such a pain
in the ass, (and yes, I'll admit that from my point of view he does get
carried away) it would be much simpler to kill file him rather than question
his sanity, don't you think?
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
>>charliew2 wrote:
>>
>>>Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>news:<99e8ce30.0410...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>>Hanson, I don't expect any reasonable answer to the question
>>>>>I asked you, but I would like to repeat it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your messages on global warming are so filled with
>>>>>rather stupid insults and so tarted up with "Ahahahahaha's"
>>>>>that they're practically unreadable. And I still don't
>>>>>understand why. So my question is -- WHY?
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess the idea is to draw attention to your message by any means
>>>>>necessary ... but I gotta say that for me, it isn't working. Most
>>>>>of what comes through is the invective and the craziness, which I
>>>>>presume is faked.
>>>>
>>>>No, my sources, or "second sight," on the troll who posts under
>>>>the pen name "hanson" say that he is not faking craziness. Our
>>>>"hanson" has a history of real world psychological problems.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>>oooo You want a site. You get what you give.
>
> Let's see the logic in this Josh, shall we? I see a very tough ad hominem
> attack, implying that another poster is mentally unstable.
You mean what hanson writes every time?
> This is bordering on slander. Hanson, in principle, could probably
> take legal action if the associated comments are not true.
Sure
1. He would have to emerge from behind the itsy bitzy screen.
2. About 1000 people would then sue him for same.
> I ask for a cite, and you give me a wimpy reply that I haven't posted
> any cites, so I am not due any.
Damn right. It seems to me it is your theme song.
> That's very convenient.
Payback is a bitch.
>
josh halpern
Day Brown
> With all due respect, I don't know Hanson personally, and neither one of us
> has ever done a favor for the other, nor are we related in any way. Despite
> one or two of my own "run ins" with Hanson, I respect his right to his
> opinion, because I am a BIG proponent of free speech. In addition, I
> consider character assassination and ad hominem attacks a very poor debating
> tool, normally used only by the crowd who are losing an argument, and who
> can think of no other way to sidetrack an issue. If Hanson is such a pain
> in the ass, (and yes, I'll admit that from my point of view he does get
> carried away) it would be much simpler to kill file him rather than question
> his sanity, don't you think?
I dunno anyone either, and likewise get tired of all the space wasted on
ad hominum. I dont argue with fools, or try to give them advice.
As for Kyoto, as I said in another post, given that the Greenland ice
cores show us one era out of the last 118,000 years which stayed warm
for 10,000 years, we mite wonder why, and when we consider that that era
is *this one*, we mite be more humble in any efforts we think we can
make to reverse the trend... which has gone on long before
industrialization.
We aint gonna stop global warming, so we awta figure out how to adapt to it.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
O18-C-O16
Busted, you're Dreyfus in disguise, this site leaves no doubt:
http://www.inspectorclouseau.com/d_dentist.html
hanson
message news:Fhigd.11008$kr4.10670@trnddc01...
> charliew2 wrote:
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> >>charliew2 wrote:
> >>>Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> >>>>fernba...@yahoo.com (2ndSight) wrote in message
> >>>news:<99e8ce30.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> >>>>>Hanson, I don't expect any reasonable answer to the question
> >>>>>I asked you, but I would like to repeat it.
> >>>>>Your messages on global warming are so filled with
> >>>>>rather stupid insults and so tarted up with "Ahahahahaha's"
> >>>>>that they're practically unreadable. And I still don't
> >>>>>necessary ... but I gotta say that for me, it isn't working. Most
> >>>>>of what comes through is the invective and the craziness,
> >>>>>which I presume is faked.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, my sources, or "second sight," on the troll who posts under
> >>>>the pen name "hanson" say that he is not faking craziness. Our
> >>>>"hanson" has a history of real world psychological problems.
> >>>
> >>>Cite?
> >>
[Albern]
> >>oooo You want a site. You get what you give.
> >
> > Let's see the logic in this Josh, shall we? I see a very
> > tough ad hominem attack, implying that another poster
> > is mentally unstable.
>
> You mean what hanson writes every time?
>
> > This is bordering on slander. Hanson, in principle, could
> > probably take legal action if the associated comments
> > are not true.
>
> Sure
> 1. He would have to emerge from behind the itsy bitzy screen.
> 2. About 1000 people would then sue him for same.
>
> > I ask for a cite, and you give me a wimpy reply that I
> > haven't posted any cites, so I am not due any.
>
> Damn right. It seems to me it is your theme song.
>
> > That's very convenient.
>
[Albern]
> Payback is a bitch.
> josh halpern
>
AHAHAHAHA........ahahahaha.......ahahahaha.....
Awe, you guys......that is so sweet!.....I am about to cry.
You fellows are such devoted fans of mine. You worry
about my feelings, my views, my AHAHA, my invective,
my cyber existence, my legal standing.......ahahahaha..
I do appreciate that. Deeply. This is sooo cool!
Maybe enviro shits, green turds and all those little green
idiots do have a soul after all, beneath their judgmental,
misanthropic, intolerant & condemn&kill-hanson attitude.
Hence, I will reconsider my evaluations for a nanosec or so.
== Now, all you guys, whom are you gonna vote for: ==
**hanson**, *Bush* or *Kerry*......AHAHAHAHAHAHA....
OBVIOUSLY, hanson's the man, THE choice, OBVIOUSLY!
ahahaha.....ahahahanson
PS:
My Pretty woman, reading this, is ROTFLHbeautifulAO says,
..."and you guys are scientists?....no wonder everything
is so fucked up"
But the best comment came from big boobed Esmeralda
in the Diamond division, who was overheard to say:
"Look at these guys. Now, that they have declared hanson
as being insane and crazy, they absolved him of everything.
Everything is their own fault now if they respond to a nut.
But then, looks like hanson is the proper authority to administer
to them. For their own good they should check into Ravencrag:"
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Ravencrag
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Hanson
hanson
news:5d02cf45.04102...@posting.google.com...
> Busted, you're Dreyfus in disguise, this site leaves no doubt:
> http://www.inspectorclouseau.com/d_dentist.html
>
ahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA.........ahahahaha......
Wow, a new groupie jumped on my green bandwagon.
Welcome, Fart-isotope! Welcome. You seem to have some
humor which is so totally absent in green shits, enviro turds
and in most of the little green idiots, all of whom are just
whining and crying that the world is going to come to
an end, because the green graft from the $$$ extortions
from permit charges, user fees and enviro/carbon taxes
ain't rolling into their green greedy hands fast enough.
You on the other hand maybe a valuable asset to/in our
facilities at Ravencrag, once you have been sufficiently
administered to and freed from your own green demons.
So please check into our care, at your convenience with
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Hanson
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Ravencrag
Follow the gents in the white coats who carry those dripping,
rusty bicycle pump looking things around. We'll welcome you.
ahahaha........ahahahanson
Roger Coppock
The citation immediately above should do, charliew2.
Roger Coppock
The poster calling himself "hanson" can not sue.
A pseudonym has no standing in a slander suit.
If another poster said that, "Roger Coppock is
insane," I, a real person named "Roger Coppock,"
would have standing to sue.
hanson
> > >> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:25516292.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > >>> the pen name "hanson" say that he is not faking craziness. Our
> > >>> "hanson" has a history of real world psychological problems.
> >
> > I see a very tough ad hominem attack, implying that another
> > poster is mentally unstable. This is bordering on slander.
> > Hanson, in principle, could probably take legal
> > action if the associated comments are not true.
>
> The poster calling himself "hanson" can not sue.
> A pseudonym has no standing in a slander suit.
> If another poster said that, "Roger Coppock is
> insane," I, a real person named "Roger Coppock,"
> would have standing to sue.
>
ahahahah......AHAHAHAHA........ahahahaha...
Roger's "legal advice" here is manifesting another one of his
symptoms and indicating the damage that the green bible has
perpetrated onto a nice person like Roger, who appears to
believe in the edicts of the green bible that says:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [soc/sci/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
Roger must be made aware of this again he must be instructed that
NG's are not the real world but fishy green 24//7/365 cyber parties,
wherein green nuts do thrive.
Roger's expressed views indicate that Roger really and desperately
needs me to administer to him. So, that Roger understands what
this entails, I invite Roger to see the orientation websites of our
mental health facilities at Ravencrag. We shall welcome you, Roger.
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Hanson
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Ravencrag
ahahahaha......ahahahanson
charliew2
Interesting. Thanks, Roger. Do you have personal experience in this area?
Roger Coppock
a Marvel™ comic book! That is what passes for mature and
sane adult behavior among fossil fools. Pitiful, isn't it?
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<rGzgd.11072$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
hanson
> sane adult behavior among fossil fools. Pitiful, isn't it?
>
AHAHAHA...ahahahahaha......AHAHAHAHA......Yes, it is, .
since it is YOU, Doomsday-Roger, who takes this for real!
YOU are pitiful indeed, Poppycock, because it cranked you to
the point of self-induced insanity, since you with your green
doomsday fetish can't differentiate any longer between the
real world - and- the green shits, the green turds & all those
little green idiots in these here NGs, aka 24/7 cyber parties.
It is pitiful for you not to realize that you have become such
an intolerant green cyber turd that you cannot stand it when
some one else uses the very same edicts and the same MO
that you have used for years to express opinions, namely that
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [pol/sci/soc] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or isn't it?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ahahahaha........I am so thrilled
that all this irritates you........and other green shits, enviro
turds and all those little green idiots.......ahahahaha..
Now, Roger, come to daddy & stop whining green croc tears!
ahahaha........ahahahanson
Is It Lunchtime Yet?
[cut]
> Which should we worry more about: CO2, which will be around for
> thousands of years
Why do you believe additional CO2 will be around for 1000s of years?
Particularly when IPCC says CO2 atmospheric lifetime is 5 to 200 years?
hanson
news:MOgid.234$dQ2....@news.uswest.net...
> Phil Hays wrote:
> > Which should we worry more about: CO2, which will be around for
> > thousands of years
>
> Why do you believe additional CO2 will be around for 1000s of years?
> Particularly when IPCC says CO2 atmospheric lifetime is 5 to 200 years?
>
5 - 200 years ??.........ahahahaha.........that proves two things:
(A)
= "A lot of environmental [science] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
No wonder the Kydioto promoters and their little green idiots are
so frantic in imposing the CARBON TAX, ASAP......All the CO2 could
be gone way before they can become rich from these extortions.
ahahaha......ahahahanson
charliew2
Well, Hanson. Take a good look around the political scene. With Dubya back
in the White House, what do you think are the chances for Kydioto or a
carbon tax in the next 4 years?
I don't know about you, but I'd give it a chance of slim and none.
hanson
> Well, Hanson. Take a good look around the political scene. With
> Dubya back in the White House, what do you think are the chances
> for Kydioto or a carbon tax in the next 4 years?
> I don't know about you, but I'd give it a chance of slim and none.
>
I don't know, Charlie. But I am finagling right now over ways on how
to make a fat quick buck off this fucken Carbon trading, before it
disappears. When I have made my fortune with it, I will post it.
But even then, rest assured, I will not make any $$ contribution to
green causes. I want the green shits, the green turds and the little
green idiots to make many more of such crooked but legalized schemes.
So that I can cash in on them too!
But like you suspect, Charlie, it may never happen.
Dubya is way too honest to allow such green machinations.
After all he is a member of 3 Xian church dominations...AHAHAHA.....
I am glad to see him back at the helm, flight suit and all. Macho!
ahahahaha......ahahahanson
David Ball
wrote:
Stupidity breeds more stupidity, Charlie. How does it feel
living in a theocracy? That's what it increasingly looks like. The
religious right not content to wallow in their own ignorance now
attempting to make everyone else do the same. It's the stuff of very
scary dystopian SF.
Phil Hays
The IPCC doesn't say that CO2 atmospheric lifetime is 5 to 200 years.
Care to give a better reference, for starters? You might also mention
the footnote on that estimate if it's the one I'm thinking of.
CO2 doesn't have a single atmospheric lifetime. The first "half life"
is short, probably less than a decade. We are already seeing this, as
only about half of the CO2 dumped into the air is still there. The
fate of the CO2 in this first "half life" is mostly to be stored in
the mixed layer of the oceans. The second "half life" is much longer,
on the order of centuries, and is mostly the mixing of CO2 into the
deep ocean. The final fate of the CO2 is weathering of silicate rocks
to carbonates, taking tens of thousands of years.
If we burned all the fossil fuels today, the CO2 level would rise to
about 16X the current level. In a few decades, it would be down to
8X. In a few centuries, it would be down to 4X. Somewhere around
10,000 years from now, it would be down to 2X. This ignores methane
hydrates, both as fuels and as side effects, and ignores a lot of
other issues. For a better answer, look at the results of carbon
modeling studies.
--
Phil Hays
Phil-hays at posting domain should work for email
Eric Swanson
>>Well, Hanson. Take a good look around the political scene. With Dubya back
>>in the White House, what do you think are the chances for Kydioto or a
>>carbon tax in the next 4 years?
>>
>>I don't know about you, but I'd give it a chance of slim and none.
>>
> Stupidity breeds more stupidity, Charlie. How does it feel
>living in a theocracy? That's what it increasingly looks like. The
>religious right not content to wallow in their own ignorance now
>attempting to make everyone else do the same. It's the stuff of very
>scary dystopian SF.
Yup, things could get seriously weird.
Afterall, the first 4 years of a President's term are spent learning how
to get things done and running for the second term. The second term is
the last one, so there is now no need to play with kid gloves on.
So, now we are going to see the real Gee Dubyah in action.
What's next, Iran...North Lorea...China...?
Will church membership become a litmus test for getting a job or
receiving government assistance? Will we have a national ID card
issued and used for internal travel restrictions? Will hospitals
and other government workers be authorized to police the immigration
status of the sick and injured who wander in from the street?
How about increasing the national debit to the point that the U.S.
Government must cut all science except that for the military?
The end-timers don't care, after all the Earth has only been around
for 6k years or so and it won't be long until THE END....
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
hanson
news:rvdjo09eit24tpggm...@4ax.com...
> >Well, Hanson. Take a good look around the political scene.
> >With Dubya back in the White House, what do you think are the
> >chances for Kydioto or a carbon tax in the next 4 years?
> >I don't know about you, but I'd give it a chance of slim and none.
> >
> Stupidity breeds more stupidity, Charlie. How does it feel
> living in a theocracy? That's what it increasingly looks like. The
> religious right not content to wallow in their own ignorance now
> attempting to make everyone else do the same. It's the stuff of very
> scary dystopian SF.
>
mudBall, your post has a very low pH......sour juice from Kerry berries.
mudBall, of course your own stupidity & your left bent pinko paranoia
breeds ever more of your own stupidity in you by your constant mental
masturbations. I have never been approached nor influenced by any
religious group. What you fear and don't want to admit is very simply
that Jews and Evangelicals have become temporary bedfellows who
were able to goad Bush into their diverse agenda. Then other sharpies
joined that bandwagon........but you shrill pinko-green idiots missed the
parade ...HAHAHAahahahaAHAHA...But, as said no $$ to them from me.
OTOH, your left-pinko green shits have extorted from me all kinds of
permit charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes and carbon taxes , either
directly or in form of higher prices. It's the stuff that all little green
idiots like you do advocate to achieve their/your utopia...and ....
fucking themselves in the process!
Your triple phony green Kennedy had his shifty enviro eyes focused
onto grabbing the Kerry EPA top job. Now, he can drive around in his
big time polluting SUV-Caravan and look for greener pastures....
Now you and him can drool over the loot that the rightwingers have
carved out for themselves.......ahahahaha....drool, mudBall, drool!
AHAHAHAHA.......ahahahanson