Global Warming The debbil made me do it

In article Roger writes:

In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.

So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
differently.

The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour added
to the atmosphere.

I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their homes,
and electrical power generation.

Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.


Alan

(Alan) wrote in
:

In article Roger
writes:

In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.

So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
differently.

The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour
added to the atmosphere.


Really? I stink at chemistry, but I can't see how 6 pounds of gas oline
can release 18.5 pouunds of CO2. Still, the point is valid even if the
numbers arenot. OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their
homes, and electrical power generation.

Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

True. What's needed is a change in the fuel used. Various things have
been tried but the biofuel thing is not going to work unless the
tecnhology is developed to make a viable fuel out of things like corn
stalks. IOW using the waste of crops already grown. There;s little point
in cutting down forest to make them, is there? NASA ran a Musketeer on
hydrogen in the 70s. could be practical for cars, but I can't see it
working for airplanes unless fuel cell technology take s few farily
large leaps. Airplanes are getting to be more efficient, of course.
though there are some anteeks that can still put any modern to shame..

Bertie

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap
it.

Dan

Dan wrote in news:1bb3d569-38ec-42e0-a26e-
:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap
it.


Or convert it to run on bunny farts. I'm considering adapting my
homebuilt to run on something strange. don't know what yet, but the
airplane is unlikely to go very far afield and the eingine is capable of
digesting fuel with the octane rating of carrot juice so I have some
lattitude there.


Bertie

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

it.

Dan

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

I disagree with almost all of the above. I don't think believers and
fanatics are all that much different when it comes to the crunch. This
isn't just anotion, BTW, I have some experience with this. The fanatic
cannot exist without succour from the mainstream, for one thing. The
beliver may distance themselves from the fanatic, but there's usually
sympathy to one degree or another that enables the fanatic comfort in
his position. This overlay applies to just about every human leaning I
can think of. But science should be and usually is, out of this realm.
Scientists don't "believe" they look at the evidence and make a best
guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..


Bertie

On Mar 11, 10:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Bertie

"Fanaticism" is usually defined as an unreasonable attachment to a
specific idea, cause, or belief.

All great advances in science broke the mold by attacking the status
quo -- see Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Pasteur, et al.

Each was pilloried in his/her day, and some past.


Dan

Dan wrote in news:dd38ea4d-205f-47a3-96b5-
:

On Mar 11, 10:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may
disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Bertie

"Fanaticism" is usually defined as an unreasonable attachment to a
specific idea, cause, or belief.

I know.


All great advances in science broke the mold by attacking the status
quo -- see Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Pasteur, et al.

Yep.
And what advance is imminent in this, exactly?

Each was pilloried in his/her day, and some past.

Yep, that's right.

Wonder which side of this debate they would fall on?

Bertie

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Roger wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

I disagree with almost all of the above. I don't think believers and
fanatics are all that much different when it comes to the crunch. This
isn't just anotion, BTW, I have some experience with this. The fanatic
cannot exist without succour from the mainstream, for one thing. The
beliver may distance themselves from the fanatic, but there's usually
sympathy to one degree or another that enables the fanatic comfort in
his position.

I never thought of it in that light, but it makes sense.
The extremist, radical, or fanatic is just an extreme view or position
of the mainstream. They are usually a small percent and couldn't
exist without either the support, sympathy, or being condoned (even by
being ignored) by the mainstream.

This overlay applies to just about every human leaning I
can think of. But science should be and usually is, out of this realm.
Scientists don't "believe" they look at the evidence and make a best
guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Dogma does tend to permeate the scientific community to a surprising
degree. IOW the "not invented here (not my idea), or we've done it
this way for years can be difficult to overcome. That's why most pick
non controversial subjects for their Masters and PHD thesis. The
scientific community can be quite resistant to change "at times" and
unfortunately if they want the grant money to keep coming in have to
be careful.

Being they, as a whole a reluctant to accept new ideas contrary to
mainstream thinking it makes the wide acceptance of global warming
even more of a high profile, something we shouldn't ignore subject.


Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote in
:

Being they, as a whole a reluctant to accept new ideas contrary to
mainstream thinking it makes the wide acceptance of global warming
even more of a high profile, something we shouldn't ignore subject.


I agree, of course. Even if it does turn out to be untrue, though, it
doesn't matter. Oil wil run out and relatively soon, so even if we move on
for that reason alone it's worth taking a different direction. if it ran
out tomorrow, we'd have to find another way, and we would. so why not just
push forward regardless? If the global warming/climate chang/sky is falling
scenario turns out to have been true, well, we've dodged a rather large
bullet. If it turns out to be untrue, well, we've dodged a smaller bullet.
Whatever else can be said about what comes out of th eailpipes of our
contraptions, it's not full of vitamins and nutrients.


Bertie