On August 16, 2016 8:41:03 PM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:26:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. How much do these problems represent?
From Lord Kelvin:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe...
There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution. Jim Bell
THANK you!!
"Global warming" gets bandied around as though it is "scientific" or even more ridiculously "accepted science".
And another thing !! <waves old wooden walking sticdk> it was always called Global Warming, except then it got called Global Anthropogenic Temperature Changes, except then it got called Global Climate Change, except before in the 60s or 70s (dang, I can't remember which) it was called Global Cooling - front page Time Magazine articles an all. Take THAT yung whipperyschapperies!
Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!
Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway? Fucking ridiculous. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.