[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Clearly you don't understand the concept of global warming. Global warming is an upward trend over time. A year over year drop really means nothing. It's like looking at humans over the last hundred years and saying evolution doesn't occur. These things take a VERY long time, but it's important to look at the data over the long haul. I'll admit though, global warming is a tough thing to measure, the data is all over the place and I don't think we have a totally clear picture of what's happening yet. I DO believe we are causing a warming trend though and should act responsibly to try to reduce CO2 as much as possible.

Clearly you don't understand the assertion I was making.

At the risk of being called a Holocaust denier, the point is that the models used to back up the global warming hypothesis (because there is no statical equivalent of control data sets, like planets nearly identical to Earth but without human civilization, there is heavy dependence on computer models) predicted strong continuous trends, in no small part because CO2 RETAINS HEAT in the atmosphere. More importantly, the sudden comparatively massive shift downward in the last year is NOT explainable within the same models used as the basis of assertion, which by definition means the models do not represent a complete and accurate understanding of the phenomena being modeled. Does this in and of itself mean that anthropogenic global warming is a total farce? No. But for the love of Christ it's relevant, and you want to talk about spin to downplay it. Emotional science is no science at all.

Basically, and this is where I get a bit offended, we are asked to put near complete faith in the models when they support desired outcomes, and intellectually (to be generous) assaulted with something more like religious fervor than rational discussion when daring to even raise suspicion based on rational observations.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. There is a crossing point most people can agree on. Clean power generation and use is an inherently good idea. After that, reducing CO2 production in economically viable ways is acceptable to me, even though I'm suspicious about how useful it is. However, going full-tilt nuts on reducing CO2 production seems catastrophically unwise. Finally, if for no other reason than China, India, to say nothing of South America and the likely future of Africa, even in extreme case scenarios man-made CO2 production will only increase for the foreseeable future. Note I said extreme case. Let's keep in mind that Japan, home of the supposedly modest Kyoto protocols, didn't come anywhere near their target reductions. And they try hard.

Oh, what do I think global warming is a lot about? This is a reasonable overview from those right wing industrialist bastards at EcoWorld.

[gunfish]

I want to have a couple of beers with Ben!

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

Clearly you don't understand the assertion I was making.

At the risk of being called a Holocaust denier, the point is that the models used to back up the global warming hypothesis (because there is no statical equivalent of control data sets, like planets nearly identical to Earth but without human civilization, there is heavy dependence on computer models) predicted strong continuous trends, in no small part because CO2 RETAINS HEAT in the atmosphere. More importantly, the sudden comparatively massive shift downward in the last year is NOT explainable within the same models used as the basis of assertion, which by definition means the models do not represent a complete and accurate understanding of the phenomena being modeled. Does this in and of itself mean that anthropogenic global warming is a total farce? No. But for the love of Christ it's relevant, and you want to talk about spin to downplay it. Emotional science is no science at all.

Basically, and this is where I get a bit offended, we are asked to put near complete faith in the models when they support desired outcomes, and intellectually (to be generous) assaulted with something more like religious fervor than rational discussion when daring to even raise suspicion based on rational observations.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. There is a crossing point most people can agree on. Clean power generation and use is an inherently good idea. After that, reducing CO2 production in economically viable ways is acceptable to me, even though I'm suspicious about how useful it is. However, going full-tilt nuts on reducing CO2 production seems catastrophically unwise. Finally, if for no other reason than China, India, to say nothing of South America and the likely future of Africa, even in extreme case scenarios man-made CO2 production will only increase for the foreseeable future. Note I said extreme case. Let's keep in mind that Japan, home of the supposedly modest Kyoto protocols, didn't come anywhere near their target reductions. And they try hard.

Oh, what do I think global warming is a lot about? This is a reasonable overview from those right wing industrialist bastards at EcoWorld.

I'm not advocating we go full tilt crazy either. I have never said that. What I am saying is that we should do as much as we responsibly can to reduce C02 emissions. I think there is plenty of evidence to show we are having some effect, so even if it's small, why not try to be as efficient as possible?

[gunfish]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

I'm not advocating we go full tilt crazy either. I have never said that. What I am saying is that we should do as much as we responsibly can to reduce C02 emissions. I think there is plenty of evidence to show we are having some effect, so even if it's small, why not try to be as efficient as possible?

I dunno, define "small," define "plenty of evidence," and define "some effect."

It's great to be efficient, but efficiency also counts when you're spending money. How much you wanna spend to affect what can arguably be described as minimal impact?

[BRUTAL64]

Originally Posted by gunfish

I want to have a couple of beers with Ben!

Having spent a little time with Ben, he is what he appears to be-- very intelligent and I don't say that easily about anyone.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by gunfish

I dunno, define "small," define "plenty of evidence," and define "some effect."

It's great to be efficient, but efficiency also counts when you're spending money. How much you wanna spend to affect what can arguably be described as minimal impact?

Well, take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

While wikipedia is not always accurate, this gives a pretty good idea of what is going on. I think there is sufficient evidence to prove that we are having a big enough effect that we should actively try to reduce our emissions. Having said that, I'm not advocating anything so drastic that economic progress stops, but reasonable steps. I think for instance reducing C02 output from vehicles should always be something we strive to accomplish.

[SeanPlunk]

Look at this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

If Bush thinks it's happening, it's almost certainly not - that dude is always wrong. Maybe I need to change my view

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Look at this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

If Bush thinks it's happening, it's almost certainly not - that dude is always wrong. Maybe I need to change my view

I knew you'd come around. Although the theory goes that the reason the administration is signing onto it is to co-opt as much regulatory policy as possible (i.e., run block from the inside.) Which, if true, I'm opposed to. If you're against something, be against it.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

. . . I think for instance reducing C02 output from vehicles should always be something we strive to accomplish.

From a manual on combustion chemistry:

In a perfectly operating engine with ideal combustion conditions, the following chemical reaction would take place.
- Hydrocarbons would react with oxygen to produce water vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2) would pass through the engine without being affected by the combustion process

In essence, only harmless elements would remain and enter the atmosphere.

The only real way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the amount O2 being burned. And now, Mr. 04 Cobra about to get pullied, good-bye muscle car era. Taken to logical extents, and ones many are actively arguing for, existing unnecessary vehicles (after all, who "needs" a Cobra or Corvette, etc.) should be banned.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

From a manual on combustion chemistry:


The only real way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the amount O2 being burned. And now, Mr. 04 Cobra about to get pullied, good-bye muscle car era. Taken to logical extents, and ones many are actively arguing for, existing unnecessary vehicles (after all, who "needs" a Cobra or Corvette, etc.) should be banned.

LOL, I never said we should get rid of our cars. I just said we should try reduce C02 and energy use where possible. I drive my car 6k miles a year, and it will EASILY pass smog. It burns very clean. With the pulley and tune, it'll probably burn even cleaner(and burn gas way faster....). Besides, do as I say, not as I do