On Jan 21, 9:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:

Please cut the crap - if you can't cut the crap, please cut the cross-
posting. If you can't do either, just go away. And if you can't do
that, you confirm every bad opinion as was ever expressed about you.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On Jan 21, 11:04*am, " wrote:

Hands up if you'd like Jute to stop writing!

Never happen. There is no anti-diarrheal strong enough to block his
spewing.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On Jan 21, 4:04*pm, " wrote:
Hands up if you'd like Jute to stop writing!

Jawohl, Herr Gruppenfuhrer. Ve vill take ze cosmpolitan Jute und
immediately shoooot him.

Tell us, Mayberry, what did your psychiatrist say when you confessed
that in the Spring your thoughts turn congenitally towards aiming your
tanks at Moscow?

(Answer for those who don't know yet, the psychiatrist told his wife:
"Don't worry about it darling, that poor blustering **** can't even
point to Las Vegas on a map of the United States. How do you think he
will ever find Moscow?")

The interesting part about global warming (for whatever the reason) is
that some places will be getting worse and some better as a result of
it.

So, Mayberry, now you're another dumb impressionable sheep who buys
into what "scientists" tell you. It figures. Or do you have
"credentials" which permit you to interpret the ecosphere to us?

I've never seen a projected map of the areas likely to improve as a
result of global warming. * *I understand Greenland might become green
again.

What a parochial jerk-off you are, Mayberry. Yo, you dumb, untravelled
illiterate, Greenland doesn't need to *become* green. The southern
part of the island is not covered by a glacier and in the summer,
every summer, is notably one of the greenest places on earth. You
really are thick. There is no *again* about it either. When an
ancestor of mine sailed west from Iceland to discover and name and
settle Greenland, it was already green, and he named it for its
greenery. When I sailed my "City of Germiston" up there nearly four
decades ago on a pilgrimage, I was struck by the fact that it is
another green and beloved island (literary reference; look it up if
you know how). Down the Carbery Coast here live at least a dozen
sailors who have also made passage to Greenland and would laugh in
your face for your ignorance.

Every time you open your mouth about me, Mayberry, your ignorance
sprays across us like spittle; I can only hope you don't have a
socially contagious disease.

Unsigned out of contempt for a transparent fool

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
Jo wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, Jo, I enjoyed reading your clever wriggling in your efforts to
make plainasthenoseonyourface statistics say something else than what
they plainly say. But, in the end, when one series lags another and
there is a causal connection, the plain truth is always that the
lagged series, in this case CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are caused
by the leading series, in this case global warming.

**Yes and, no. Increased temperatures certainly DO cause the oceans to
release CO2 (thus leading to more warming). However, there is no reason to
think that warming was not due to other factors in the past. What scientists
are certain of is the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Adding more greenhouse gases
to the troposphere is causing the present warming. Of that, science is
certain. As the planet warms, the ocean will release more CO2, thus
compounding the effect still further.




Yes, global warming events can be triggered by factors other than CO2
emissions. For example, many of these trigger events were small increases
of
solar flux due to Milankovitch cycles. However, once an initial warming
has
occurred and caused some greenhouse enhancing CO2 release there are
several
strong positive feedback systems which ensure that the temperatures and
CO2
levels will continue to rise long after the initial trigger event has
ended.

Okay. So now you admit Mother Nature causes global warming, which is
what the statistics tell us.

**Nature _can_ cause global warming. At present, however, it is mankind that
is causing the warming.


The current trigger event is, itself, a significant release of CO2 caused
by
human activities.

Prove it.

**Are you serious? That humans have increased CO2 levels is beyond any
doubt.

The actual fact is that there is zero correlation between
high levels of human activity and global temperature

**Incorrect. There is not only a very high correlation, but there is
certainty amongst all but the fossil fuel apologists.

and that the
Greenies try to make their lies stick by choosing tiny shortrun
ripples which fade into the background noise of all statistics when
relevant long-term series are considered.

**I'll remind you of that when most of Florida, London, Bangladesh and
Sydney CBD is under a few Metres of sea water.


Repeat: Global warming causes CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions do not,
repeat not, cause global warming. Whole "environmentally concerned"
empires fall on that truth.

Repeating something does not make it true.

Repetition is required because you appear to think that global warming
is caused by CO2 emissions which happened 700 years *after* the global
warming you are trying to claim it caused. There's dumb, and there's
dumber, and there're environmentalists, who are off the scale of
dumbness.

**There is a saying in the financial world, which sees appropriate:

"Do not judge future returns by past performance."

At no time in the past has there been 6 BILLION humans on this planet. At no
time in the past have fossil fuels been burnt at a rate which is 1 million
times faster than at the rate those fuels were deposited. At no time in the
past, has global warming occured as fast as it is now. CO2 levels are
presently higher than at any time in the last 400,000 years.


The greenhouse properties of CO2 can easily be demonstrated in any
reasonably equipped physics lab and are also well explained at the
molecular
level. So, perhaps you could explain the mechanism that prevents CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, from acting as a greenhouse gas ?

It's for this sort of irrelevant smoke-blowing and incompetent
weaseling that I compare environmentalists to their cousins in
irrationality and deceit, the marxists. The question is not whether
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but whether it initiates global warming or
whether global warming releases the CO2.

**Both.

Clearly, the statistics tell
us global warming from solar activity releases the CO2.

**I suggest you do some more study on this. Your abilities are clearly
lacking. The forcing effects, due to Solar irradiance, amounts to less than
0.05oC. The rest is due to CO2.

To say
different is to lie, and the statistics prove that the
environmentalists have been deliberately and systematically lying for
decades.

**Nope. The facts tell us that there are a large number of poorly educated
people (such as yourself), who have bought the fairy tale handed to you by
the fossil fuel apologists. People like Lindzen, who were the first to
defend the tobacco industry, are also supporters of the fossil fuel lobby.


The vastly destructive Kyoto Agreement is based on this lie; the money
spent on that lie for Kyoto alone will cause hundreds of millions to
starve when we could have fed them and lifted them out of poverty and
disease and still have had some money left over for AIDS research.

**A drop in the ocean, if/when the ocean levels rise. If you're so worried
about poverty/AIDS, et al, then complain about the Iraq war. That war,
alone, could have solved world poverty for the next few generations.


Even after you prove, which you haven't yet, that CO2 causes global
warming, you still have to prove people are responsible. The
statistics tell us that humans are by far not the greatest producers
of greenhouse gases (cows probably are...). Nor can greenhouse gas
levels be linked to periods of greater human activity -- the
statistics give the lie to that claim.

**What planet are you from?


Your entire environmental belief is unscientificically based on faith
alone, Jo; well, actually, also on a whole scad of shameful lies. And
it is motivated by the same despicable urge that drove the Marxists,
the desire to control the actions of your fellow humans without
submitting yourself, because you know that on the (non-existent)
merits of your argument you are unelectable, to democractic process
and scrutiny.

Jo

Personally, I think the environmentalists are a worse danger to the
future of humanity than a few thousand disturbed ragheads; we have a
"Muslim terrorist threat" only because the Americans overreacted to
9/11, hardly on a world scale a significant body count. We have been
successfully putting down raghead fanatics for centuries without ever
breaking sweat but environmentalism is a virulent disease with which
we have infected ourselves, caused by the same tendency to wallow in
vicarious guilt that turned the intellectual classes commie for most
of the last century, including well after it became abundantly clear
to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Marxism was built
on a big, murderous lie. Environmentalism stands on the same cusp as
Communism circa 1937, where the intelligent and observant can already
see the lie but the destruction and the cost in lives is still veiled
except to those who study the lessons of history with open minds.

Andre Jute
People before control freaks

PS Hands up those who think I should cut Jo a break because she's a
girl. Now hands up those who think I should step on Jo hard because
women are intrinsically more intelligent than men and therefore more
despicable when they weasel like Jo does. Now hands up the vast
majority who think I should stomp Jo terminally because a girl has no
place on an audio conference... a right bunch of fascists you are!


**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very shaky
scientific ground.

Trevor Wilson

On Jan 21, 4:12*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very shaky
scientific ground.

That has never stopped Andre from anything... Why should this time be
any different? However, he has met his goal by crossposting a thread
started elsewhere, brought here by him for his amusement.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Trevor Wilson wrote:

A lot of science that I was going to write and thus avoided sore fingers for
me. Thank you Trevor.

I would just like to add that the source of the excess CO2 that is now being
measured is fossil fuels. This is no guess, the isotopic ratio of the carbon
in the "new" CO2 is identical to that found in fossil fuels.

I also note that Andre did not explain how the increasing levels of CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, could be failing to produce a greenhouse effect,
instead he said that this was "irrelevant".

Oh..and calling people who disagree "stupid" is at the top of most lists of
logical fallacies Andre should get such a list and look up "ad hominen" for
starters..he might recognize quite a few others in such a list..he is well
practiced at them.

Jo

P.S. sorry about the cross posting, that one slipped past me.

Jo wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

A lot of science that I was going to write and thus avoided sore fingers for
me. Thank you Trevor.

I would just like to add that the source of the excess CO2 that is now being
measured is fossil fuels. This is no guess, the isotopic ratio of the carbon
in the "new" CO2 is identical to that found in fossil fuels.

I also note that Andre did not explain how the increasing levels of CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, could be failing to produce a greenhouse effect,
instead he said that this was "irrelevant".

How do scientists recognize 'new CO2'? Is it by the gauche manner of the
molecules? Their clumsy attempts at Brownian motion?

The 'greenhouse effect' of CO2 is many times smaller than that of H2O
so Andre is right; it is pretty irrelevant.

--
Eiron.

Eiron wrote:

How do scientists recognize 'new CO2'? Is it by the gauche manner of
the molecules? Their clumsy attempts at Brownian motion?


The increase in total atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm over he last 150
years is well documented. The change in relative amounts of atmospheric 14C,
13C and 12C isotopes is also known. This, together with a knowledge of the
isotope mix in fossil fuels and some simple arithmetic, allows us to
identify the source of the extra CO2 as fossil fuels.

Data for the above comes from a variety of sources including entrapped air
in ice cores as well as C13/C12 isotope ratios from tree rings and corals.

There is also the simple fact that we have burned 500 billion metric tons of
carbon in the last 150 years. This is easily enough to have yielded the
observed increase in atmospheric CO2 even taking into account some
absorption by the biosphere and the oceans.

This is a quick summary....I'll provide further details if you want them.

The 'greenhouse effect' of CO2 is many times smaller than that of H2O
so Andre is right; it is pretty irrelevant.


Water vapor does act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave
radiation and contributes toward the already existing natural greenhouse
effect that makes life on earth possible at all. However, you have your
facts wrong about the relative effects of CO2 versus H2O. Wiki, for example,
puts the values at 60% for H2O, and 26% for CO2. So, the observed increase
in CO2 can and does have a significant effect on greenhouse warming.
Furthermore, any extra warming will cause water vapor levels to rise and so
we have the following positive feedback loop:

The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide raises the temperature, and that
causes more water vapor to evaporate. The greenhouse effect of H2O then acts
as an amplifier of the CO2 effect, increasing the temperature further.
However, that increase in temperature causes more water vapor, and so the
water vapor is in a feedback loop with the surface/atmospheric temperature.
The water vapor effect is a feedback and the carbon dioxide effect is a
forcing in this particular loop (there are others).

Jo

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Jo wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

A lot of science that I was going to write and thus avoided sore fingers
for me. Thank you Trevor.

I would just like to add that the source of the excess CO2 that is now
being measured is fossil fuels. This is no guess, the isotopic ratio of
the carbon in the "new" CO2 is identical to that found in fossil fuels.

I also note that Andre did not explain how the increasing levels of CO2,
a known greenhouse gas, could be failing to produce a greenhouse effect,
instead he said that this was "irrelevant".

How do scientists recognize 'new CO2'? Is it by the gauche manner of the
molecules? Their clumsy attempts at Brownian motion?

The 'greenhouse effect' of CO2 is many times smaller than that of H2O
so Andre is right; it is pretty irrelevant.

**No, it is not and no, he isn't. CO2 is less influential on global warming
than water vapour, but not by "many times". (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas ) CO2 is STILL a major
greenhouse gas. As the planet warms (due to the influence of extra CO2),
then more water vapour will enter the troposphere, thus accelerating the
effect still more. We can't control water vapour, but we can control CO2. We
should do so, and do so now.

Trevor Wilson

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 4:12 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very
shaky
scientific ground.

That has never stopped Andre from anything... Why should this time be
any different? However, he has met his goal by crossposting a thread
started elsewhere, brought here by him for his amusement.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Why don't you get a job instead of your wife being the only bread winner so
you will not have all this time on your hands. I wish I had a wife like
yours so that she can support me and I could make believe that I was rich.
The only thing is that she has to be ugly (from what someone told me when
you published a pix of your family). Oh well there's always Jack Daniels and
paper bags. :-(