Global warming.
Nashton
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
from evo goons.
This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
Robert Camp
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>
> CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
It's relative contribution to *anthropogenic* warming may need to be
re-evaluated. That does not mean that CO2 has diminished in importance.
Perhaps you should read more carefully.
> When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading
> posts from evo goons.
Ahh, the classic
shooting-one's-mouth-off-about-things-he-does-not-know. Seems climate
change denial is an awful lot like evolution denial as well.
> This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
> agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
"Just?" What makes you think this approach will be free of the
political and economic difficulties like those found in other options?
> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
> admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
If you believe you found this sentiment in the story to which you
linked above, I can only suggest once again that you bother to read
that to which you refer. If you actually wish to contribute something
beyond impotent invective, it's a habit that comes in handy.
RLC
Nashton
> On 2009-11-22 14:55:07 -0800, Nashton <na...@na.ca> said:
>
>>
>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>>
>> CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
>
> It's relative contribution to *anthropogenic* warming may need to be
> re-evaluated. That does not mean that CO2 has diminished in importance.
> Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Allow me to rephrase this. The relative significance of CO2 in the
alleged AGW model has been diminished. This alone is huge, but you can
go on crying about how my invective.
>
>> When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading
>> posts from evo goons.
>
> Ahh, the classic shooting-one's-mouth-off-about-things-he-does-not-know.
> Seems climate change denial is an awful lot like evolution denial as well.
Hear that? That's the sound of the point going whooosh right above your
head.
>
>> This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
>> agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
>
> "Just?" What makes you think this approach will be free of the political
> and economic difficulties like those found in other options?
Where and when did I say that? Can you not read, man?
>
>> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean
>> and admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
>
> If you believe you found this sentiment in the story to which you linked
> above, I can only suggest once again that you bother to read that to
> which you refer. If you actually wish to contribute something beyond
> impotent invective, it's a habit that comes in handy.
Until now, the contribution of CO2 to global warming was believed to be
more significant than what it actually is.
Do.you.get.that.
>
> RLC
>
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
I see that you have a serious problem comprehending English.
Nashton
You would say that, wouldn't you?
Ye Old One
Yes, because he is correct. You do have a serious problem
comprehending English. You have an even worse problem understanding
science.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Nashton
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:57:26 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
> group when s/he wrote:
>
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:55:07 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>>> talk.origins:
>>>
>>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>>>>
>>>> CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
>>>> When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
>>> >from evo goons.
>>>> This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
>>>> agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
>>>>
>>>> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
>>>> admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
>>> I see that you have a serious problem comprehending English.
>>>
>>
>> You would say that, wouldn't you?
>
> Yes, because he is correct. You do have a serious problem
> comprehending English. You have an even worse problem understanding
> science.
>
>
And your alleged "comprehension" has pushed you to make some of the most
idiotic comments in this ng.
"All drugs are derived from the ToE" and "science is not a human invention."
Do you enjoy being reminded of your bloopers, Bob?
Boikat
> > group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>> talk.origins:
>
> >>>>http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>
> >>>> CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
> >>>> When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
> >>> >from evo goons.
> >>>> This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
> >>>> agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
>
> >>>> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
> >>>> admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
> >>> I see that you have a serious problem comprehending English.
>
> >> You would say that, wouldn't you?
>
> > Yes, because he is correct. You do have a serious problem
> > comprehending English. You have an even worse problem understanding
> > science.
>
> And your alleged "comprehension" has pushed you to make some of the most
> idiotic comments in this ng.
>
> "All drugs are derived from the ToE" and "science is not a human invention."
>
> Do you enjoy being reminded of your bloopers, Bob?
Like the list of idiotic comments made by assmonkey/Null Thinking I
(diot)?
And exampe of a "Cambrian mammal" is "trilobites". Tell me that's not
only idiotic, but simply stupid combounded by ignorance.
Or, how about claiming that "Dr" Kent Hovind was a *brilliant*
scientist who made many *great scientific* discoveries? If you don't
see that as idiotic, perhaps you can come to admonkey's rescue and
please, by all means, post an example of a :great scientitic discovery
made by Hovind. Discovering the penalty of tax evasion does not
count, since that's not a *scientific* discovery.
Then there's the claim that Hitler's understanding of the ToE was
manifest in WWII *and* **WWI**. If that's not a stupid and idiotic
claim, again, come to the intellectual reacue of your little buddy,
and please explan how Hitler had anything to do with WWI, aside from
being an enlisted ground pounder with the duty of "Currier". Or did
assmokey make an idiotic claim?
I would also like to see an example of a war fought because "science
dispelled some aspect of some religious belief". Asmnky recently
claimed that he was refering to "culture wars", which is not the
context of the original claim, and besides, that same accusation can
be made (sith supporting evidence) about wars fought because of
*religious* conflicts. Again, would you care to cite a war, any war,
that was actually fought based upon science dispelling some aspect of
a religious belief? Please, name the war, when it was fought, where
is was fought, what religious belief was dispelled, and who fired the
first shot. Can you do that, and help assmonkey regain at lieast an
ounce of credibility, or was he full of carp, and his claim more than
just a little bit on the "idiotic* side?
And there are a lot more where those came from, but I wouldn't want to
tax you research abilities too much, non-the-less, I expect you'll be
able to demonstrate that adman is not an idiot, fond of making idiotic
claims, dispite the overwhealming evidence.
Boikat
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:57:26 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:55:07 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>>>> talk.origins:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>>>>>
>>>>> CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
>>>>> When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
>>>> >from evo goons.
>>>>> This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
>>>>> agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
>>>>> admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
>>>> I see that you have a serious problem comprehending English.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You would say that, wouldn't you?
>>
>> Yes, because he is correct. You do have a serious problem
>> comprehending English. You have an even worse problem understanding
>> science.
>>
>>
>
>
>And your alleged "comprehension" has pushed you to make some of the most
>idiotic comments in this ng.
>
>"All drugs are derived from the ToE"
Yes NashtOff, I laughed when you fist said that. But keep repeating it
really does make you look stupid - even by the usual standard of
creationist stupidity.
> and "science is not a human invention."
Well that part is true.
>
>Do you enjoy being reminded of your bloopers, Bob?
If I every make one I'll let you know.
Now, back to the hand jobs little trollslob.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
Richard Harter
>
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>
>CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
>When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
>from evo goons.
>
>This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
>agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
That would be truly remarkable if it were true. However that is
not what is being said. One cited author, Rattan Lal, says that
different farming practices could reduce CO2 emissions by twelve
percent. What that would do would be to slow down the rate of
increase of CO2 by a modest amount. To put it more colorfully,
instead of making a mad dash to hell in a handbasket, we could
settle down to a steady jog.
All of this is not surprising to anyone who is familiar with what
has happened in agricultural practice in the last century. The
fundamental problem is that high tech, high carbon footprint
farming "works" - with it you can produce more food cheaply (as
long as fossil fuel don't explode) with fewer people. A lot more
food produced by a lot less people.
People don't want to farm - it's hard work and it's boring. City
life is easier and more interesting. People don't want to stop
breeding and producing more people - the world population keeps
growing. People want to keep improving their standard of living.
Etc.
Green revolution farming is a traditional deal with the devil.
We need that cheap, abundant food NOW. The price we will pay in
the future for it is dismissed as speculation and ignored,
because we need it NOW, and today's empty stomach trumps
tomorrow's ruined world.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
hersheyh
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
>
> CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
It accounts for about 43% of global warming gasses/aerosols being
released annually. However the second place gas is methane, which,
kilo by kilo is about 25 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than
CO2. It accounts for about 27% of global warming. The largest single
source of methane is distributed in the frozen soils of the northern
tundra and is currently being released more rapidly than previous
models predict *because* of global warming and its greater effect at
polar regions. The only effective way to prevent the release from
such a diffuse source is to prevent more global warming from other
sources.
Other contributers include halocarbons (8%) and black carbon (sooty
emissions from burning wood, dung, and diesel), 12%. These can, of
course, also be reduced. But the big contributor is still CO2.
This can all be found in the very article you cite, but on other pages
you apparently did not bother to read.
> When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
> from evo goons.
>
> This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
> agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
No. That is not what the article you cite says. What it says is "He
writes that soils could sequester an additional 15 percent of annual
global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels." Obviously that percentage
would be decreased if the annual global CO2 emissions *increased*
significantly. And such increases could overwhelm the capacity of
soils to absorb CO2. Soil absorption would only cause a *decrease* in
CO2 atmosphere concentration if we stop *increasing* the amount of CO2
we pump into the atmosphere each year. Otherwise, it would only
*slow* the rate of increasing global warming.
> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
> admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
More evidence that you cannot read for comprehension.
Mitchell Coffey
> Have to hand it to Gore, our new green billionaire for coming clean and
> admitting it wasn't as serious as he/they thought.
How much is Al Gore actually worth?
Mitchell Coffey
Desertphile
Er, ah, dear shit-for-naffoff. You do realize that Co2 isn't the
only mechanism that is currently driving global climate change,
right? You do realize, don't you, that the entire world's body of
climatologists agree human-generated Co2 is part of the problem
but not all of it?
Or are you just a moron?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-22 14:55:07 -0800, Nashton <na...@na.ca> said:
> > This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
> > agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
> "Just?" What makes you think this approach will be free of the
> political and economic difficulties like those found in other options?
There is only one way to decrease the consquences of global
warming: contraception. It is too late to stop the process, and
too late to fix the problem. The best we can do is limit the cost
of the disaster, and that means there must be fewer people over
the next 100 years or so.
heekster
In 2008, he was worth $100M net. Probably a bit more now.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
When you read something and come to a conclusion that is different from
what the writer clearly intended, it seems silly to blame the writer.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:55:07 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4
> >
> >CO2 isn't as important as the scientific community thought.
> >When you hear the AGW activists talk, it's very similar to reading posts
> >from evo goons.
> >
> >This is potentially huge. Just by modifying the way we practice
> >agriculture can decrease CO2 atmospheric concentration by 15%.
> That would be truly remarkable if it were true. However that is
> not what is being said. One cited author, Rattan Lal, says that
> different farming practices could reduce CO2 emissions by twelve
> percent. What that would do would be to slow down the rate of
> increase of CO2 by a modest amount. To put it more colorfully,
> instead of making a mad dash to hell in a handbasket, we could
> settle down to a steady jog.
Yes; Lal is proposing we make the destruction of the ecosystem
drag out another eight or ten years, giving humanity that much
longer to move our food production and storage industries to
higher elevations and/or farther north in latitude (for most
people in the world). Naffoff calls this slight delay "potentially
huge."
Reducing CO2 by 15% isn't going to help much: CO2 is just one of
the factors driving global climate change.
> All of this is not surprising to anyone who is familiar with what
> has happened in agricultural practice in the last century. The
> fundamental problem is that high tech, high carbon footprint
> farming "works" - with it you can produce more food cheaply (as
> long as fossil fuel don't explode) with fewer people. A lot more
> food produced by a lot less people.
Reduce the number of people, and we can reduce the amount of food
required.
> People don't want to farm - it's hard work and it's boring. City
> life is easier and more interesting. People don't want to stop
> breeding and producing more people - the world population keeps
> growing. People want to keep improving their standard of living.
> Etc.
>
> Green revolution farming is a traditional deal with the devil.
> We need that cheap, abundant food NOW. The price we will pay in
> the future for it is dismissed as speculation and ignored,
> because we need it NOW, and today's empty stomach trumps
> tomorrow's ruined world.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
> http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
> Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
> could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.