"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and
in fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed
to damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the
beginning of history?
**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid?
CO2 levels are rising faster than at any time in history.

The last time CO2 levels were higher than they are now (more than
400,000 years ago) there was a mass extinction.

On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"





trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Actually, that's not so. The last time CO2 levels were above where
they are today was at least 650,000 years ago, very probably more than
2 million years ago and possibly as much as 55.8 million years ago, at
what is known as the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). That was
also the last of the five major extinction events affecting the
planet. At the PETM, increases in CO2 of 1500 -- 2000 Gt were emitted
over about 1000 years, which is not slower than the rate at which
atmospheric CO2 is building up today.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.

It's important not to confuse extinction events with ice ages, since
contemporary humanity's most primitive ancestors surivived a number of
these, but nothing above about 35 kg (and not much that was less than
35 kg either) survived the PETM.

It's also worth noting that whatever one thinks of the link between
CO2 and warming, an atmosphere with 1000PPM CO2 would be a lot less
pleasant to live in -- it would be rather like living one's entire
life in a stuffy room. The humans alive then could easily see that
level by 2096, and have to helplessly endure them spiralling to about
2000 PPM within another 20-30 years. Whatever happened to the planet,
life on Earth would be tough for anyone without access to personal
supplies of fresh air.

Fran



Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message

snip

I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global warming
religious theorists.

If you so much as question there view your denounced as
a heretic.

I thought science was supposed to be skeptical and to allow
criticism

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

On Apr 22, 12:30 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"

trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Actually, that's not so. The last time CO2 levels were above where
they are today was at least 650,000 years ago, very probably more than
2 million years ago and possibly as much as 55.8 million years ago, at
what is known as the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). That was
also the last of the five major extinction events affecting the
planet. At the PETM, increases in CO2 of 1500 -- 2000 Gt were emitted
over about 1000 years, which is not slower than the rate at which
atmospheric CO2 is building up today.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.

It's important not to confuse extinction events with ice ages, since
contemporary humanity's most primitive ancestors surivived a number of
these, but nothing above about 35 kg (and not much that was less than
35 kg either) survived the PETM.

It's also worth noting that whatever one thinks of the link between
CO2 and warming, an atmosphere with 1000PPM CO2 would be a lot less
pleasant to live in -- it would be rather like living one's entire
life in a stuffy room. The humans alive then could easily see that
level by 2096, and have to helplessly endure them spiralling to about
2000 PPM within another 20-30 years. Whatever happened to the planet,
life on Earth would be tough for anyone without access to personal
supplies of fresh air.

Fran

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm ....  you may find this interesting...http://igitur-archive.library..uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0906-200913/c7...

Also....  it seems that although benthic foramanifera (single celled
bottom dwelling lifeforms) had it rough.,...mammals on the other hand
did quite well....

The Paleocene/Eocene boundary, 55.8 million years ago, was marked by
the most rapid and significant climatic perturbation of the Cenozoic
Era. A sudden global warming event, leading to the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum
1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late
Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), is associated with
oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-
sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on
land coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian
orders.

Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic
foramanifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000
years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T
extinction.
        Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
dinoflagellates bloomed.

        Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time.

The deep sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were
regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic): this means
that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-
related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness
due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was
global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that
the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result
in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on
corals.[17] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying
plankton,[18] (although the suitability of using strong acids to
simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from
elevated CO2 concentrations is unclear). This also led to an abundance
of heavily calcified algae[19] and weakly calcified forams.[20]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no
evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.
Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[21] - which may
(perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders,
including the Artiodactyla, horses and primates, appeared as if from
nowhere, and spread across the globe, 13,000 to 22,000 years after the
initiation of the PETM.[21]

On Apr 22, 1:17 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:> "Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message

snip

.

I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global warming
religious theorists.

You can use any phrase you like, but in this case you'd be debauching
the language. Religious belief makes no testable claims, whereas in
the case of AGW, one can see how the group of hypotheses might be
disproved. These haven't been disproved however, and indeed, such
reliable and pertinent data that does exist strongly recommends them
as the best explanation for the pattern of climate-relevant events we
have seen over the last century.

If you so much as question there view your denounced as
a heretic.

People feel strongly on this matter, perhaps because the welfare of
humans in the here and now are in jeopardy and because those denying
the theory are in effect, attempting to excuse those who are parties
to the human activities that are creating the said jeopardy in
circumstances where good science supports the theory and the reckless
pursuit of a narrow sectional interest seeks to frustrate the
associated policy. Much the same pattern arose in past years in
realtion to smoking, aerosols like SO2, asbestos, vehicle emissions,
Ozone. Science said one thing and industry another, warning that
civilisation as we knew it would collapse if actione were taken to
limit damage. In the end, action was taken and civilisation survived
and was better for it, and indeed, even some of those complaining were
better for it. It's tiresome to have to revisit this pattern.

That shouldn't prompt people to start becoming abusive, but it's
probably inevitable that they will. This is not, after all, a
discussion over who will win the grand final or who is the hottest
person on TV but a matter bearing upon the wellbeing of nearly 7
billion people.

I thought science was supposed to be skeptical and to allow
criticism

Skepticism isn't mindless naysaying, and certainly not industry-driven
naysaying. Skepticism is a process in which hypotheses are subjected
to examination, to see if they fit relaiable pertinent data or lead to
conclusions that would be paradoxical. Have you never wondered why
none of those in this discussion called 'skeptics' are worrying that
the climate models might be too optimistic -- that the sea level or
CO2 or temperature rises or deglaciation projected by the IPCC might
be an underestimate, or the action proposed not as robust as needed?
There is some scope for thinking so, and yet, surprise surprise, the
skeptics all come on the other side of the argument. That says
something about their 'skepticism'.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:09:22 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> sayd the following:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

That's pretty fucking sad then.

On Apr 22, 8:11 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 22, 1:17 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:> "Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message

snip

.

I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global warming
religious theorists.

You can use any phrase you like, but in this case you'd be debauching
the language. Religious belief makes no testable claims, whereas in
the case of AGW, one can see how the group of hypotheses might be
disproved. These haven't been disproved however, and indeed, such
reliable and pertinent data that do exist strongly recommend them
as the best explanation for the pattern of climate-relevant events we
have seen over the last century.

If you so much as question there view your denounced as
a heretic.

People feel strongly on this matter, perhaps because the welfare of
humans in the here and now is in jeopardy and because those denying
the theory are in effect, attempting to excuse those who are parties
to the human activities that are creating the said jeopardy in
circumstances where good science supports the theory and the reckless
pursuit of a narrow sectional interest seeks to frustrate the
associated policy. Much the same pattern arose in past years in
relation to smoking, aerosols like SO2, asbestos, vehicle emissions,
Ozone. Science said one thing and industry another, warning that
civilisation as we knew it would collapse if actions were taken to
limit damage. In the end, action was taken and civilisation survived
and was better for it, and indeed, even some of those complaining were
better for it.  It's tiresome to have to revisit this pattern.

That shouldn't prompt people to start becoming abusive, but it's
probably inevitable that they will. This is not, after all, a
discussion over who will win the grand final or who is the hottest
person on TV but a matter bearing upon the wellbeing of nearly 7
billion people.

I thought science was supposed to be skeptical and to allow
criticism

Skepticism isn't mindless naysaying, and certainly not industry-driven
naysaying. Skepticism is a process in which hypotheses are subjected
to examination, to see if they fit reliable pertinent data or lead to
conclusions that would be paradoxical. Have you never wondered why
none of those in this discussion called 'skeptics' are worrying that
the climate models might be too optimistic -- that the sea level or
CO2 or temperature rises or deglaciation projected by the IPCC might
be an underestimate, or the action proposed not as robust as needed?
There is some scope for thinking so, and yet, surprise surprise, the
skeptics all come on the other side of the argument.  That says
something about their 'skepticism'.

Carefully-phrased, well-explained, realistic posting. That'll earn you
very many minus points on this ng.-

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:16:03 -0400, Robert Blass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:09:22 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> sayd the following:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

That's pretty fucking sad then.

Nah. It's five out of a hundred. Pretty good, considering...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ea83ae13-e46e-4c73-8bc8-db5ab4efd8a3@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"



trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and
in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to
damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of
history?
**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid?
CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time
CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago)
there was
a mass extinction.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.
**************************

Fran, baby,