Global Warming The debbil made me do it

In article -
sjc.supernews.net, mariposas rand mair fheal says...

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
the sudden.

election year

If perchance you're a Jefferson Airplane fan, its worth catching
their latest incarnation in concert. Paul Kanter gets really
wound up with his political rhetoric in election years.

--

"I never thought there were corners in time
until I was told to go stand in one"
.....Grace Slick

"Dan" wrote:


Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because you're
just
"playing around."

It's all just for fun. Right.

The last refuge of the usenet loser.

But by all means, keep it up.

I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.

Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
word loved by libs.

Rightard babbling. It had to happen.

And it's not for fun, except in your case. The emotional intensity of
your religious worry crusade is downright luminescent

Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

The same bombastic pronouncement. Do you imagine that repetition makes it
more effective?

You haven't and in no way can prove otherwise. And no laundry list of
wikipedia links will prove it, either.

Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
to be right."

Now you're lapsing into incoherence. Is there spit on your keyboard?

By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100.
That's all in your head. You're delusional.


Then I'll fly back to Iowa, just for the view.

You are out of your tiny mind.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

Do you really want to talk about this, or just throw around phrases
like that?




Rhetorical, right?



Inevitably.

"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13t95a1jcq2up34
@news.supernews.com:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

Do you really want to talk about this, or just throw around phrases
like that?




Rhetorical, right?



Inevitably.




Sigh.


Bertie

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So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says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

On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
word loved by libs.

Rightard babbling. It had to happen.

Your language reveals you.

Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

The same bombastic pronouncement. Do you imagine that repetition makes it
more effective?

Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
to be right."

By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100.
That's all in your head. You're delusional.

I expect you to prove there will be a 10 foot rise by then.

Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "



Dan

(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
:

On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" --
another word loved by libs.

Rightard babbling. It had to happen.

Your language reveals you.

Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20
foot rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

The same bombastic pronouncement. Do you imagine that repetition
makes it more effective?

Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.


No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.


Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
to be right."

this won't happen. It will be me saying I told you so (if I'm dead I'll
leave a note on the fridge) but it will be too late.
That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible and
so would most scientists.
the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources will
have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the twinkling
of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
beer.
In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when. IC
technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over a
hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We can
develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we can
do it now.

By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise
by 2100. That's all in your head. You're delusional.

I expect you to prove there will be a 10 foot rise by then.

Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "


SOHF


Bertie

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