I think I will believe these learned men before I believe you, who doesn't even sign his last name, and who gives no reason to doubt the fact that CO2 is a GHG except to say it isn't.
You are exactly the kind of rube they are counting on.
Sure, I could lay this all out for you, if I took 2 or 3 hours and crossed every t and dotted every i. But, you're just not worth it. I have better things to do with my time, and esp with someone who has shown they will stoop to asking the stupidest question without taking even 10 minutes to read the existing literature on a problem.
David Appell is a full time blog troll who claims man is responsible for global warming. He has a Google alert to tell him when any blogger posts on the issue of anti man made global warming. He makes it his mission in life to combat any claims to the contrary of his AGW world view. He believes President Bush is the spawn of Satan and hates "warrantless" wire taps but has no problem with the totalitarian environmental movement. This is a compilation of all of his usual responses on blogs.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
(insert name), are you saying that you *haven't* yet written your finding up and submitted it to any yet, or applied to discuss it at conferences, or went on the seminar circuit? What are you waiting for and why are you wasting your time arguing with some ? Your finding that the run-up in CO2, CH4, and other levels of GHGs is *not* of human origin is ground-breaking and of enormous significance to the field! Really, it will overthrow decades of work done by hundreds of scientists. They need to know, quickly, about your discovery. Places like the AAAS's ScienceExpress exist specifically to get important results like this out to the scientific community as soon as possible. I encourage you to write up your paper and submit it there pronto.
And yet you recoil in fear and anger that your electricity might be generated from the sun and not fossil fuels.
You are exactly the kind of fool the Bush administration is counting on -- hardheaded, impervious to evidence, scared ****less that some terrorist is going to blow up your mailbox, and willing to grant the government any power if they will just protect you.
Funny, though, how all these people keep coming out of the US military penal system all say they were tortured -- isn't it?
(insert name): I'm not interested in arguing constitutional semantics. Save that for your pow wows and bonfires. For all practical purposes, the government can compel you to do a great number of things, all of which impinge on your theoretical freedom, some quite significantly. You know it as well as I do.
Your civil and constitutional rights have been restricted and taken away more by the Bush administration in the last 7 years than anything any climate activist has ever proposed. But instead of focusing on wiretapping, corporate collusion with government, imprisonment without habeus corpus, or the president's "right" to torture you in secret, you're upset because you might have to pay $2 more a month for clean electricity. That's extremely short-sighted and foolish.
The government does this to you in dozens of ways every day. It requires you home to have indoor plumbing, for the sake of your society and the planet. It requires you properly dispose of your garbage, for the sake of society and the planet. It outlaws burning trash in your backyard, for the benefit of society and the planet. It requires a catalyct converter on your car, for the sake of you and the planet. It forbids you from dumping mercury wherever you might want, for the sake of society and the planet. It regulates sulfate emissions (via a cap and trade system) that raises the cost of your power, for the sake of society and the planet. It regulated CFC release, making your refrigerator more expensive, for the sake of society and the planet.
So, (insert name), I'll ask you again (I don't think you answered last time; if so, I missed it, sorry): did the US government have the right to regulate lead out of the gasoline you put in your car? And was this a good thing or a bad thing?
It's just that I am for accurate and complete reporting, as you fail to realize the size and scope of the . Every time some scientific result comes along that is favorable to your side, you highlight it as some kind of as proof against AGW. (Funny how you never mention the papers that come out weekly in journals all across the world -- including J Climate, where this paper has been submitted -- in agreement with AGW.