Al Gore's Private Jet

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:51:04 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
motivate the public to act.

Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.

Don




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:04:42 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The ratio of carbon isotopes C-12, C-13, and C-14 found in fossil fuels and
the ocean are known and provide tell-tale "signatures". The ratio of those
carbon isotopes in the atmosphere have been measured with respect to time
and the isotopic evidence indicates the increase of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is most probably due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Carbon 14 comes into existence when Nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere
get zapped by neutrons from the sun. These Carbon atom isotopes are
incorporated into plant material by photosynthesis. But it breaks down
over time and there is little left over 40K years.

So, Carbon Dioxide from a volcano will have no C14. Carbon Dioxide
from coal and oil which are hundreds of millions of years old will
likewise have negligible amounts. You cannot tell one from the other
by C14 measurements.

CO2 from burning trees or rotting vegetation will have measurable
amounts.

So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
oil and volcanic CO2? The presence of C14 in CO2 can only tell us that
it did NOT come from either, but instead from something more recent.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...

So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
oil and volcanic CO2?

Coal is solid.
Oil is liquid.
Volcanic CO2 is a gas.

(Sorry, that was too easy)

"Don Tabor" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

politicalization

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzz...ve-2007#item01


Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.

]

Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
motivate the public to act.

Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.


Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source code
is available to anyone?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every
year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and
submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human
activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas
flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [
( Marland, et al., 1998)


Gee...where did it all go?

The natural CO2? Where it's always gone. Natural CO2 emissions--including
volcanic sources--are kept in rough balance by the carbon cycle and plant
growth. If they weren't, we would all have suffocated long ago.

The human generated CO2? A lot of it is still up there, less than we have
emitted because natural systems--e.g. stimulated plant growth--have buffered
some of the excess.

In the last century or so, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing,
leading global temperature rise instead of trailing it as it has in natural
cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.

"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice,
called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was
278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between
1000 and 1800 A.D."

"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm
at the end of 2004...." (NOAA 2005-035)

Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?

- The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2
emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes
like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)"


It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2, and
his argument collapses, no?

Check a couple other sources.

I already have. It's your turn to show some backup.

Are you going to answer Logajan's challenges to the professor's letter?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:05:24 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Don Tabor" wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
motivate the public to act.

Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.


Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source code
is available to anyone?

When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
says is tainted.

The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.

In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
this topic to achieve his ends.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:31:04 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
.. .

So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
oil and volcanic CO2?

Coal is solid.
Oil is liquid.
Volcanic CO2 is a gas.

(Sorry, that was too easy)


OK

Please explain how one can tell the difference between CO2 from the
burning of coal or oil and Volcanic CO2?



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Don Tabor" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

politicalization

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzz...ve-2007#item01


Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.

]

Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?

The topic is politicizing the debate.

The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
political activists.

That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.

Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
from Regent University to be ad hominem?

How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
fuel companies?

Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
aware of the expert's rice bowl?

Don




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

In article ,
Don Tabor wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Don Tabor" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

politicalization

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzz...ve-2007#item01


Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.

]

Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?

The topic is politicizing the debate.

The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
political activists.

That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.

Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
from Regent University to be ad hominem?

How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
fuel companies?

Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
aware of the expert's rice bowl?

Don


To get back on the subject of aviation:

How about giving credence to reports on aviation benefits & impacts by
"jgrove," "skylune" or "Bill MulCahy"?